Tenants in common question

Sundaymorning6

Hi

Hope all are well. 

Just had a question on ownership based on tenants in common (50/50 split). Is it possible to lose your share? I don’t know whether this is a stupid question. But for example, if one party lived in the property and basically treated it as their own. They redecorated and made whatever changes and probably maintenance of anything that needed to be fixed.

I live out of area but even when I lived close by, it was a situation of being basically excluded from the property as I’m not the one living there. So it is more a situation where I’m not being involved than Ive simply abandoned it. 

Thanks 

_Penny_Dreadful

No, you can't lose your share* and as a joint owner I'm not sure you can legally be excluded from the property unless there's a court order saying you cannot enter.  Pardon my nosiness but is there a reason you remain a joint owner of a property that, in your own words, you are being excluded from?

*I suppose if you were married to the other owner and you got divorces then when divvying up the marital assets you could end up with less than 50% of the equity.

nyermen

Appreciate your "vagueness" is possibly because you want to keep details secret, so you may get a few follow up questions to help understand what you can divulge.

Eg. In general, there should not be any reason to lose share unless a court orders it, or access for that matter.  The only exception I can think of is might be if there was a tenancy in place, then the tenant would have exclusive right to privacy etc.

Sundaymorning6

_Penny_Dreadful said:

No, you can't lose your share* and as a joint owner I'm not sure you can legally be excluded from the property unless there's a court order saying you cannot enter.  Pardon my nosiness but is there a reason you remain a joint owner of a property that, in your own words, you are being excluded from?

*I suppose if you were married to the other owner and you got divorces then when divvying up the marital assets you could end up with less than 50% of the equity.

Thanks for replying. 

No it’s not a marital asset. It was jointly inherited. 

Definitely no court order to exclude me, just in practise that is the situation. They live there with their partner and they children and treat it as their home. They have the attitude that they live there so why do I need to be involved. This wasn’t always the case but like I said, since I moved away I’m not told about anything and if I have suggested going around there when I back they avoid that too. 

There is no benefit to me financially at the moment having a 50% share other than I have a bit of property in my name. I just don’t want that share to be at risk also!

RAS

Can we just check that probate has been granted?

It costs nothing to search the go.uk website from the date of death to when it was granted and £1.50 to get the will or details of the administration.

You also need to check the Land Registry to confirm that the property has been registered as tenants in common. £3.

If the other owner is not allowing you access and is living there, they should be buying out your share at the current value.

And if you are claiming or make a future claim for means-tested benefits the house ownership complicate your situation. 

_Penny_Dreadful

Sundaymorning6 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

No, you can't lose your share* and as a joint owner I'm not sure you can legally be excluded from the property unless there's a court order saying you cannot enter.  Pardon my nosiness but is there a reason you remain a joint owner of a property that, in your own words, you are being excluded from?

*I suppose if you were married to the other owner and you got divorces then when divvying up the marital assets you could end up with less than 50% of the equity.

Thanks for replying. 

No it’s not a marital asset. It was jointly inherited. 

Definitely no court order to exclude me, just in practise that is the situation. They live there with their partner and they children and treat it as their home. They have the attitude that they live there so why do I need to be involved. This wasn’t always the case but like I said, since I moved away I’m not told about anything and if I have suggested going around there when I back they avoid that too. 

There is no benefit to me financially at the moment having a 50% share other than I have a bit of property in my name. I just don’t want that share to be at risk also!

What @RAS said, if probate has been granted the other owner should be buying you out of your share if they want to treat it as their home and don't want to allow you to have anything to do with it.  Personally I think you should broach the subject of them buying you out followed by mediation if that doesn't work and finally forcing the sale of the property through the courts if necessary.  It really rips my knitting when there's a joint owner who isn't willing to buy the other out yet wants to continue living there as if they are a sole owner.  Forcing the sale can take months if not years so the sooner you start the sooner it will be over.

Keep_pedalling

Frankly you are being treated as a mug, why should they have all the benefit of your inheritance? Unless you are perfectly happy about the current situation I would be requesting that they buy your share, sell and split the proceeds or they start paying you rent for your share. If they don’t agree then you have the option of forcing a sale although that will be expensive for both of you.

EssexHebridean

One thing to bear in mind is that currently, should you wish to purchase another property, you will have SDLT issues to take into account. This may or may not have any impact on you.

macman

You are perfectly entitled to enter and occupy the property if you wish to.

Sundaymorning6

Thanks for all the responses. Far from happy about it trust me. But unless I want to force a sale there isn’t much I can do. I have already tried to initiate that but they made no attempt at finding anywhere else to live and ended up with me getting a lot of earache from family because basically had I continued they wouldn’t have had anywhere to go and they have children. Unfortunately, the other party is a flake and doesn’t take responsibility.

Probate has been granted yet. The only option I can see left is to wait until I am living a bit closer and buying it myself. But I don’t know how long that would be. Hence I wondered if I could lose my rights. 

Exodi

_Penny_Dreadful said:
It really rips my knitting when there's a joint owner who isn't willing to buy the other out yet wants to continue living there as if they are a sole owner.

Agree, see it too often on this forum unfortunately.

Sundaymorning6 said:

Probate has been granted yet. The only option I can see left is to wait until I am living a bit closer and buying it myself. But I don’t know how long that would be. Hence I wondered if I could lose my rights. 

No you can't lose your rights. The ownership of the property (e.g. as stipulated on the title deeds) is wholly seperate and irrelevant to the (relatively) small details of who lives where, who paid for the curtains, who paid the broadband last etc. Obviously landlords own houses that they may not have stepped foot in for decades.

The obvious point would be - don't spend money on a property you jointly own if you don't want the co-owner to benefit from it.

I would be proactive in trying to sort this though, as to be honest, it will only get more difficult the longer you allow them to become ingrained in the property. You both own half the house, point out that it's not fair you are not receiving any benefit from your half - in theory they should be paying you rent for half the house. Annoyingly they sound people that would use emotional blackmail style arguments - e.g.  "you want to the kids to be homeless??". Depending on your level of pettiness, you could announce you plan to move into the property... you are just as entitled to as the other party.

Realistically, I expect this will be resolved in court... at some expense...