Help please! - Severance of joint tenancy with unequal shares

cindycs

Writing this for a friend, names have been changed! 

Does anyone have any experience of serving a notice of severance of joint tenancy when the split should not be 50/50? We want to state the desire to sever joint tenancy and ideally become tenants in common (as he refuses to remove himself from the deeds) with an unequal share of benefit as he only paid a very small sum into the mortgage for a very short period of time, and nothing towards the deposit, maintenance or any subsequent mortgage payments to date. 

In an ideal world he should not receive any benefit from the house at all but as I understand, that is not how it works and he is legally entitled to half, being the co-owner on the deeds, until it goes to court and all the evidence is presented. 

Brief back story: 20 yrs ago Jane met John in a pub. He was charming and they started dating. The following month she fell pregnant in an "accident". He had nothing and had previously been declared bankrupt. She had lost her parents 10 years previously and so owned her own modest flat. He moved in with her. Once the baby was born, they decided to move to a different area where she put all her inheritance and money from sale of her flat into buying a house. Believing they were going to be a family she put his name on the deeds even though he had contributed nothing. She stayed at home for 6 months to look after her small baby and he said he couldn't get a job in the local area so "had to" take a job back in the area they had moved from. During this 6 months, he contributed to the mortgage and came home on weekends. But after 6 months he said he had met someone else and was leaving her. He took the car she had bought, which they shared and she never saw it again. 

After some time she tried to get his name removed from the deeds but he refused. He didn't contribute another penny to the house or the child's upbringing. 

Now since the child turned 18 he's been sending her threatening letters saying he wants his half of the house and he is going to force the sale of the house. It has now got to the stage that he's instructed a solicitor. 

Unfortunately my friend has not been dealing with this well and was nearly ready to just sell up and give him half as she didn't know what to do, and has no money for a solicitor. 

When she told me her story I was so appalled as she is such a lovely lady. She was at her wits end, so my partner and I want to help. But we are not lawyers and are navigating this blind. If anyone can help or offer any suggestions I would be most grateful. I have drafted a letter to serve to his solicitor certifying her intent to sever joint tenancy, but I do not want to put in that they are joint beneficiaries in equity. He does not deserve any of her house in my opinion so need some help with the wording of the letter. 

Can anyone help please?

elsien

The backstory doesn’t really have a huge amount of relevance.
Unless there was any documentation stating otherwise when it was set up, if they are joint tenants that is 50-50 and it can’t be changed without his consent unless a court decides otherwise. 
What you think the split should be morally and what it is in practice are two different things. 

Brie

Were they ever married?  That may be a crucial thing as things are a bit different for unmarried couples.  Sorry - I don't know all the ins & outs of it.  Others will be along that do.

Has a letter come from a solicitor or is it just that he claims he's instructed one?  

Meanwhile I would suggest she find out what the house was worth when he left.  There might be an argument to say he should get 50% of that value rather than the current one.  It sounds like he's no better off financially now than he was 20 years back so it's possible that if offered a smallish sum based on the value of the house then he might be happy to give up his fight.  

She should also document everything from a financial point of view.  Original cost, how much he might have actually contributed, how much she has paid to maintain the house since he left etc.  Add to that the fact that he has never paid child support might sway the legal types to taking her side decisively.  She might in fact tot up what that support might have been moneywise and deduct that from his "share". 

I hope she gets this sorted well in her favour for both her sake and that of her child's.  

WYSPECIAL

Brie said:

 There might be an argument to say he should get 50% of that value rather than the current one.  

The counter argument to that is that she wasn't paying him 50% of the market rent for all the time she enjoyed sole use of the property.

Has your friend contacted a local solicitor to see if she can get a free advice session as many offer that? If they were never married then it could end up being an expensive argument that she can't win but it would definitely be worth getting some legal advice first.

cindycs

WYSPECIAL said:

Brie said:

 There might be an argument to say he should get 50% of that value rather than the current one.  

The counter argument to that is that she wasn't paying him 50% of the market rent for all the time she enjoyed sole use of the property.

Has your friend contacted a local solicitor to see if she can get a free advice session as many offer that? If they were never married then it could end up being an expensive argument that she can't win but it would definitely be worth getting some legal advice first.

Why should she not enjoy the benefit of a house that she paid for? 

The thing is, he didn't pay anything towards the deposit of the house, which she provided from her inheritance. He only contributed for 6 months towards the mortgage. Some might say that he saw her coming and took her for a ride. There are so many details that I have not included here about his character and other things that happened during their brief relationship. She was burgled and all her late mothers jewellery was taken, for example when she was on a holiday that he had basically coerced her into after the birth of their child.  

Why should he get half of its value when he didn't pay any deposit and only contributed for 6 months (while he was also getting into another relationship elsewhere).

He really doesn't sound like a stand up kind of guy. And sadly she was very naive.

cindycs

Brie said:

Were they ever married?  That may be a crucial thing as things are a bit different for unmarried couples.  Sorry - I don't know all the ins & outs of it.  Others will be along that do.

Has a letter come from a solicitor or is it just that he claims he's instructed one?  

No, they were not married and yes a letter came from his solicitor notifying her of severance of joint tenancy in equity. 

elsien

cindycs said:

WYSPECIAL said:

Brie said:

 There might be an argument to say he should get 50% of that value rather than the current one.  

The counter argument to that is that she wasn't paying him 50% of the market rent for all the time she enjoyed sole use of the property.

Has your friend contacted a local solicitor to see if she can get a free advice session as many offer that? If they were never married then it could end up being an expensive argument that she can't win but it would definitely be worth getting some legal advice first.

Why should she not enjoy the benefit of a house that she paid for? 

The thing is, he didn't pay anything towards the deposit of the house, which she provided from her inheritance. He only contributed for 6 months towards the mortgage. Some might say that he saw her coming and took her for a ride. There are so many details that I have not included here about his character and other things that happened during their brief relationship. She was burgled and all her late mothers jewellery was taken, for example when she was on a holiday that he had basically coerced her into after the birth of their child.  

Why should he get half of its value when he didn't pay any deposit and only contributed for 6 months (while he was also getting into another relationship elsewhere).

He really doesn't sound like a stand up kind of guy. And sadly she was very naive.

Because that is what the law says unless he or a court agree otherwise.