Removal of Name from Deeds - do I need a solicitor?

Calico75

My common law partner and I separated at the start of the year.  It's been an amicable split where we've negotiated who gets what between us.  He is remaining in our jointly owned home, taking over the mortgage in his sole name, and paying me out my half of the equity.

We are nearing the point of removing my name from the house deeds and his solicitor has advised him that I also need a solicitor.  As I'm simply taking my name off the deeds, do I need a legal representative for this?

If it makes any difference from a legal perspective, we're in Scotland.

Thanks for any help or advice.

user1977

You don't need one, no.

Alderbank

What you are proposing is called 'transfer of equity'.
If you both own the property outright you can just agree everything between yourselves and fill in a couple of forms from the Land Registry, no solicitors required.

However if there is still a mortgage outstanding then a third party has some skin in the game. The bank will require a solicitor from their approved panel to be retained to protect the bank's interests.

MyRealNameToo

Alderbank said:

What you are proposing is called 'transfer of equity'.
If you both own the property outright you can just agree everything between yourselves and fill in a couple of forms from the Land Registry, no solicitors required.

However if there is still a mortgage outstanding then a third party has some skin in the game. The bank will require a solicitor from their approved panel to be retained to protect the bank's interests.

But presumably that is already covered @alderbank by the OP's ex who has a solicitor and will be having a mortgage in just his name?

DE_612183

MyRealNameToo said:

Alderbank said:

What you are proposing is called 'transfer of equity'.
If you both own the property outright you can just agree everything between yourselves and fill in a couple of forms from the Land Registry, no solicitors required.

However if there is still a mortgage outstanding then a third party has some skin in the game. The bank will require a solicitor from their approved panel to be retained to protect the bank's interests.

But presumably that is already covered @alderbank by the OP's ex who has a solicitor and will be having a mortgage in just his name?

This is the key thing - you should be more concerned about your name being removed from the mortgage than the deeds - if the deeds get transferred but your name is still on mortgage you can still be held for any debt that happens.

theartfullodger

Done any legal training in this sort of thing?? You don't NEED a solicitor but with this value of asset I'd get a professional to do it.

MyRealNameToo

theartfullodger said:

Done any legal training in this sort of thing?? You don't NEED a solicitor but with this value of asset I'd get a professional to do it.

But they re relinquishing the asset not gaining it... can't think of many scenarios where being the accidental owner of a property is going to be a bad thing

Alderbank

MyRealNameToo said:

theartfullodger said:

Done any legal training in this sort of thing?? You don't NEED a solicitor but with this value of asset I'd get a professional to do it.

But they re relinquishing the asset not gaining it... can't think of many scenarios where being the accidental owner of a property is going to be a bad thing

Negative equity?

Also we have seen cries for help from people who have inherited a retirement flat from the likes of McCarthy Stone - they aren't allowed to live there, can't sell and can't even give it away because of the accumulated and growing management fees.

MyRealNameToo

Alderbank said:

MyRealNameToo said:

theartfullodger said:

Done any legal training in this sort of thing?? You don't NEED a solicitor but with this value of asset I'd get a professional to do it.

But they re relinquishing the asset not gaining it... can't think of many scenarios where being the accidental owner of a property is going to be a bad thing

Negative equity?

Also we have seen cries for help from people who have inherited a retirement flat from the likes of McCarthy Stone - they aren't allowed to live there, can't sell and can't even give it away because of the accumulated and growing management fees.

If they're not on the mortgage the debt isnt there's so the negative equity isnt either. 

Given OP states it's a house then the chances of it being leasehold are substantially lower but in other scenarios possibly. 

user1977

MyRealNameToo said:

Alderbank said:

MyRealNameToo said:

theartfullodger said:

Done any legal training in this sort of thing?? You don't NEED a solicitor but with this value of asset I'd get a professional to do it.

But they re relinquishing the asset not gaining it... can't think of many scenarios where being the accidental owner of a property is going to be a bad thing

Negative equity?

Also we have seen cries for help from people who have inherited a retirement flat from the likes of McCarthy Stone - they aren't allowed to live there, can't sell and can't even give it away because of the accumulated and growing management fees.

Given OP states it's a house then the chances of it being leasehold are substantially lower

The chances are zero, given they also stated they're in Scotland.

I don't see any particular advantage in the OP instructing a solicitor (unless the other solicitor is being particularly awkward about dealing with an unrepresented party).

Calico75

Thanks for everyone's comments and perspective.

That's useful to clarify that removing my name from the mortgage is the priority here and then yes, with the house being freehold, onus on my ex's solicitor to ensure my name is entirely removed from the deeds seems reasonable enough.