What happens if one of the joint owners of property spends all the rent money?

Ormus

What can the other joint owner do to recover their loss?

Also, can the joint owner be forced to pay their half of the mortgage?

Kosseegan

Sue and yes.

Ormus

Kosseegan wrote: »

Sue and yes.

Did you think you were being helpful? Did you really?

chopser

Ormus wrote: »

Did you think you were being helpful? Did you really?

While succinct, they are actually the correct answers.

You gave so little information. Did you expect someone to give you several answers for hypothetical situations that they could think of?

Go see a solicitor.

Ormus

chopser wrote: »

While succinct, they are actually the correct answers.

You gave so little information. Did you expect someone to give you several answers for hypothetical situations that they could think of?

Go see a solicitor.

You can't see any middle ground there? Nothing in between f*ck off one word answers and several answers to hypothetical questions?

I don't believe you're that dumb.

"Go see a solicitor" could be the answer to every single question on this forum. Are you just here to abuse people?

Ormus

Ormus wrote: »

What can the other joint owner do to recover their loss?

Also, can the joint owner be forced to pay their half of the mortgage?

So how does the innocent joint owner prove their loss, in the absence of written evidence?

Aren't both parties jointly and severally liable for the mortgage? How would a court enforce against the non-paying joint owner? On what grounds exactly?

chops018

Legal advice isn't allowed on here, which is why you were told to go to a Solicitor. The thread will probably be closed once a mod gets a look!

Ormus

chops018 wrote: »

Legal advice isn't allowed on here, which is why you were told to go to a Solicitor. The thread will probably be closed once a mod gets a look!

It says in the charter that one is allowed to ask for opinions and to give hypothetical situations.

How does one have a legal discussion without being allowed to discuss the law?

I'm not being sarcastic, honest question.

chops018

Ormus wrote: »

It says in the charter that one is allowed to ask for opinions and to give hypothetical situations.

How does one have a legal discussion without being allowed to discuss the law?

I'm not being sarcastic, honest question.

Yes we're allowed to discuss hypothetical scenarios. So if you said "x paid this amount for a car but then y never delivered" what would happen in such a situation, then that would be grand. Your original post seems a bit fishy, seems as if you're looking for advice on a actual situation. In any event like an above poster said we would need more info to discuss it properly.

Ormus

chops018 wrote: »

Yes we're allowed to discuss hypothetical scenarios. So if you said "x paid this amount for a car but then y never delivered" what would happen in such a situation, then that would be grand. Your original post seems a bit fishy, seems as if you're looking for advice on a actual situation. In any event like an above poster said we would need more info to discuss it properly.

My question is more hypothetical than your example. You created a specific situation and just left out the people's names.

Surely if I gave any info about it at all, it would cease to be hypothetical?

MagicSean

Ormus wrote: »

My question is more hypothetical than your example. You created a specific situation and just left out the people's names.

Surely if I gave any info about it at all, it would cease to be hypothetical?

Your question doesn't make sense. What rent money are you talking about in the title?

Ormus

MagicSean wrote: »

Your question doesn't make sense. What rent money are you talking about in the title?

The hypothetical property in question is being rented out. I had to keep the title concise, thought you might have surmised that.

BornToKill

I too think the opening post lacks clarity. It's difficult to engage with the topic when so little information is given.

Ormus wrote: »

Also, can the joint owner be forced to pay their half of the mortgage?

To which of the joint owners does this refer? What did one of the - I presume two - joint owners spend the rent receipt mony on? If it was on re-paying a mortgage installment then that would be fine.

Ormus

BornToKill wrote: »

I too think the opening post lacks clarity. It's difficult to engage with the topic when so little information is given.



To which of the joint owners does this refer? What did one of the - I presume two - joint owners spend the rent receipt mony on? If it was on re-paying a mortgage installment then that would be fine.

Forgive me for lacking clarity, but I am trying to tread a thin line between being informative and remaining hypothetical.

The hypothetical property is being rented to tenants. One of the 2 joint owners spent the rent money personally. I think it's unnecessary for us to speculate on what it was spent on, suffice that it was not spent for the benefit of the property or the other joint owner.

The aforementioned joint owner also ceased paying his half of the mortgage and ran up a large debt, which the bank is now demanding from both joint owners.

BornToKill

Ormus wrote: »

The aforementioned joint owner also ceased paying his half of the mortgage and ran up a large debt, which the bank is now demanding from both joint owners.

Right, so is it the case that each of the joint owners of this rental property paid half of the mortgage direct to the bank and that one of them stopped doing this and the account went into arrears?

When you say 'ran up a large debt' is this independently to the mortgage which is itself a large debt or do you just mean that arrears built up on the mortgage?

They are joint owners but is the mortgage also in both their names? If it is then, as you mentioned earlier, there will be joint and several liability.

Ormus

BornToKill wrote: »

Right, so is it the case that each of the joint owners of this rental property paid half of the mortgage direct to the bank and that one of them stopped doing this and the account went into arrears?

When you say 'ran up a large debt' is this independently to the mortgage which is itself a large debt or do you just mean that arrears built up on the mortgage?

They are joint owners but is the mortgage also in both their names? If it is then, as you mentioned earlier, there will be joint and several liability.

Yes, they each paid half direct to the bank. and one of them stopped.

I mean ran up a large mortgage debt...mortgage arrears.

The mortgage is in both of their names.

Thanks for the feedback.

28064212

How was the rent paid/collected from the tenant? Was there a written agreement over what happened to the rent after it was paid (joint account, 50:50 split etc)?

Indricotherium

Ormus wrote: »

Forgive me for lacking clarity, but I am trying to tread a thin line between being informative and remaining hypothetical.

The hypothetical property is being rented to tenants. One of the 2 joint owners spent the rent money personally. I think it's unnecessary for us to speculate on what it was spent on, suffice that it was not spent for the benefit of the property or the other joint owner.

The aforementioned joint owner also ceased paying his half of the mortgage and ran up a large debt, which the bank is now demanding from both joint owners.

Can you maybe say person a and person b, the way you are describing the situation is really confusing.

Leave out the fancy stuff and just describe hypothetical situation with hypothetical names.

Ormus

Indricotherium wrote: »

Can you maybe say person a and person b, the way you are describing the situation is really confusing.

Leave out the fancy stuff and just describe hypothetical situation with hypothetical names.

Ok so A and B married and bought a second house together. They paid the mortgage together and then rented it out to lodgers. The rent was paid into a joint account by the tenants.

When the marriage broke up, B moved out of the family home and into the second house. He got the tenants to move out and rented out 2 rooms to 2 new tenants to help supplement the mortgage. When B moved out of the family home, A realised that B had been taking all of the rent money out of the joint account and the mortgage was in arrears. A wrote to the bank telling them that this had happened and that B was now responsible for all payments. A closed the joint account.

A year later, A got a letter from the bank saying that B had not made any payments on the house and that the mortgage was now 25k in arrears.

So that's pretty much the way it stands, hypothetically. I'm aware that A is still jointly and severally liable for the debt, but she has plenty of correspondence with the bank showing that she informed them and they accepted that B is the real debtor. If B turns out to be a man of straw, is a judge likely to be lenient on A?

Also, what can A do to make B leave the house? Can the bank reposses it?

If any of this is still unclear, apologies.

bath handle

Ormus wrote: »

Indricotherium wrote: »

Can you maybe say person a and person b, the way you are describing the situation is really confusing.

Leave out the fancy stuff and just describe hypothetical situation with hypothetical names.

Ok so A and B married and bought a second house together. They paid the mortgage together and then rented it out to lodgers. Thje rent was paid into a joint account by the tenants.

When the marriage broke up, B moved out of the family home and into the second house. He got the tenants to move out and rented out 2 rooms to 2 new tenants to help supplement the mortgage. When B moved out of the family home, A realised that B had been taking all of the rent money out of the joint account and the mortgage was in arrears. A wrote to the bank telling them that this had happened and that B was now responsible for all payments. A closed the joint account.

A year later, A got a letter from the bank saying that B had not made any payments on the house and that the mortgage was now 25k in arrears.

So that's pretty much the way it stands, hypothetically. I'm aware that A is still jointly and severally liable for the debt, but she has plenty of correspondence with the bank showing that she informed them and they accepted that B is the real debtor. If B turns out to be a man of straw, is a judge likely to be lenient on A?

Also, what can A do to make B leave the house? Can the bank reposses it?

If any of this is still unclear, apologies.

The bank can reposseess the house. A and B are business partners as far as the house is coppos wererned. if there is a judgement it will be for an against each of them for the full amount.A will get no let off.

Kosseegan

Ormus wrote: »

Did you think you were being helpful? Did you really?

Yes. Yes really!

krd

bath handle wrote: »

The bank can reposseess the house. A and B are business partners as far as the house is coppos wererned. if there is a judgement it will be for an against each of them for the full amount.A will get no let off.

Can the theft of the money be reported to the guards?


If both parties were in effect "business" partners, it would seem that one of the business partners has embezzled funds from the business. Is this not committing and offence?

28064212

krd wrote: »

Can the theft of the money be reported to the guards?


If both parties were in effect "business" partners, it would seem that one of the business partners has embezzled funds from the business. Is this not committing and offence?

That assumes that they had agreements drawn up. From the sounds of it, partner B collected the rent (or it was paid into a joint account), with no agreements on the split of the rent in place

Milk & Honey

krd wrote: »

Can the theft of the money be reported to the guards?

It can be reported but it would be a waste of time to do so.

krd wrote: »

If both parties were in effect "business" partners, it would seem that one of the business partners has embezzled funds from the business. Is this not committing and offence?

No. It is a fundamental principle of theft that a person cannot steal his own property. The stolen property must belong to someone else. The money is owned by both partners jointly. Each owns it. neither can steal it. It is a civil matter between the partners if one misapplies partnership money. The only exception might be if there was forgery.

krd

Milk & Honey wrote: »

No. It is a fundamental principle of theft that a person cannot steal his own property. The stolen property must belong to someone else. The money is owned by both partners jointly. Each owns it. neither can steal it. It is a civil matter between the partners if one misapplies partnership money. The only exception might be if there was forgery.

In a business situation how then do you stop a partner from siphoning off funds?

Then again - in the OPs instance. The partner who has used the funds, has done so with deception.

If I was in the situation where there was a mortgage on a property involved with a partner, I would probably insist on some kind of bank account that let neither partner dip into the funds.

Milk & Honey

krd wrote: »

In a business situation how then do you stop a partner from siphoning off funds?

Only go into business with people whom you trust, to start with. Carry out regular checks to ensure that all is in order.
[/QUOTE]

krd wrote: »

Then again - in the OPs instance. The partner who has used the funds, has done so with deception.

Maybe, maybe not. presumably the o/p had access to the information from the bank at any time.

krd wrote: »

If I was in the situation where there was a mortgage on a property involved with a partner, I would probably insist on some kind of bank account that let neither partner dip into the funds.

An elementary precaution.

Avatargh

Ormus wrote: »

Did you think you were being helpful? Did you really?

What's wrong with you?

Your post title was "What happens if one of the joint owners of property spends all the rent money?"

You then asked "What can the other joint owner do to recover their loss?"

The answer was "sue". What is wrong with that answer? What else is there? Ask them for it? Write them a letter? Surely you were on here to find out is there a legal basis for recovering the loss. You were told you could sue. That would seem to tell you everything you need to know.

You then asked "Also, can the joint owner be forced to pay their half of the mortgage?"

The answer was "yes". I'm finding it difficult to see what is wrong with that.

You asked specific questions, you got specific answers.

Ormus

Avatargh wrote: »

What's wrong with you?

Your post title was "What happens if one of the joint owners of property spends all the rent money?"

You then asked "What can the other joint owner do to recover their loss?"

The answer was "sue". What is wrong with that answer? What else is there? Ask them for it? Write them a letter? Surely you were on here to find out is there a legal basis for recovering the loss. You were told you could sue. That would seem to tell you everything you need to know.

You then asked "Also, can the joint owner be forced to pay their half of the mortgage?"

The answer was "yes". I'm finding it difficult to see what is wrong with that.

You asked specific questions, you got specific answers.

I really don't think you find it difficult. It's very simple really. He got the answers right. But this is not a quiz. I was looking for helpful answers (such as those given by Born to Kill and Bath Handle above). He chose not to be helpful. Judging by your coming on here a week later to stir it up, I'm guessing you're looking for an argument?

Kosseegan

Ormus wrote: »

I really don't think you find it difficult. It's very simple really. He got the answers right. But this is not a quiz. I was looking for helpful answers (such as those given by Born to Kill and Bath Handle above). He chose not to be helpful. Judging by your coming on here a week later to stir it up, I'm guessing you're looking for an argument?

So I wasn't helpful. Ever heard of "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer?"
A properly formulated question will get a different answer. This is a discussion forum, not a quiz so you should ask open questions.

Ormus

Kosseegan wrote: »

So I wasn't helpful. Ever heard of "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer?"
A properly formulated question will get a different answer. This is a discussion forum, not a quiz so you should ask open questions.

Granted, my question needed clarification and elaboration, mea culpa. "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" usually refers to a situation where a person is directly asked a question.

I find it strange that you went out of your way to be unhelpful.

Other people went out of their way to be helpful. Some people are nice like that.

Kosseegan

Ormus wrote: »

Granted, my question needed clarification and elaboration, mea culpa. "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" usually refers to a situation where a person is directly asked a question.

I find it strange that you went out of your way to be unhelpful.

Other people went out of their way to be helpful. Some people are nice like that.

You chose to ask an unhelpful question. You had to be prompted to clarify and elaborate. You are in no position to say other people went out of their way to be unhelpful. You started it!

Ormus

Kosseegan wrote: »

You chose to ask an unhelpful question. You had to be prompted to clarify and elaborate. You are in no position to say other people went out of their way to be unhelpful. You started it!

You went out of your way to be deliberately unhelpful.

That's the point.

Kosseegan

Ormus wrote: »

You went out of your way to be deliberately unhelpful.

That's the point.

I did not go out of my way to be deliberately unhelpful. I answered your questions. How was I supposed to know what the full story was? Any "unhelpfulness" was provoked by you.No wonder your rent was stolen.

Mr. Presentable

As I see it:

Both A and B owe all the amount borrowed for the second proerty, so both are equally indebted. "A" still owes what "B" failed to pay - as does "B".

The joint account is moneys owned by both "A" and "B". Either one is entitled to do what they will with any or all the money. "B" can't steal anything - it is already all his. As another poster observed, unless there is a two signature requirement to make a withdrawal there is no crime.

Ormus

Kosseegan wrote: »

I did not go out of my way to be deliberately unhelpful. I answered your questions. How was I supposed to know what the full story was? Any "unhelpfulness" was provoked by you.No wonder your rent was stolen.

If you were genuinely trying to be helpful, then I'm sorry for thinking otherwise. But you have already admitted to me that you deliberately gave a stupid answer.

You couldn't possibly have known what the full story was. You weren't obliged to answer at all. There was no pressure on you whatsoever.

Haha, it wasn't my rent! Thanks for your concern, but I'm not one of the protagonists in the story. It's all hypothetical anyway.

Ormus

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

As I see it:

Both A and B owe all the amount borrowed for the second proerty, so both are equally indebted. "A" still owes what "B" failed to pay - as does "B".

The joint account is moneys owned by both "A" and "B". Either one is entitled to do what they will with any or all the money. "B" can't steal anything - it is already all his. As another poster observed, unless there is a two signature requirement to make a withdrawal there is no crime.

Thank you sir, that is helpful.

Kosseegan

Ormus wrote: »

If you were genuinely trying to be helpful, then I'm sorry for thinking otherwise. But you have already admitted to me that you deliberately gave a stupid answer.

I did not say that I deliberately gave a stupid answer. The question itself was stupid. I gave what would have been a perfect answer had not the question turned out not to be stupid.
If I had said nothing at all you would not have found out how stupid your question was since by your logic nobody should have given any answer since they had no information.

BornToKill

Ormus wrote: »

You went out of your way to be deliberately unhelpful.

That's the point.

Its none of my business but I would have thought that deliberately unhelpful would have meant exactly that - deciding not to help. Answering the questions as they were asked seems quite helpful.

Ormus

Kosseegan wrote: »

I did not say that I deliberately gave a stupid answer. The question itself was stupid. I gave what would have been a perfect answer had not the question turned out not to be stupid.
If I had said nothing at all you would not have found out how stupid your question was since by your logic nobody should have given any answer since they had no information.

Haha, ok so what you're saying is that you wanted to enlighten me as to how stupid a question I had asked by giving me a stupid answer?

And this was all done out of kindness for me in order that I might see the error of my ways and become better at asking questions?

Kosseegan

Ormus wrote: »

Haha, ok so what you're saying is that you wanted to enlighten me as to how stupid a question I had asked by giving me a stupid answer?

And this was all done out of kindness for me in order that I might see the error of my ways and become better at asking questions?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not stupid. Your subsequent rude comments and rephrasing of the question have shown me the error of my ways.

Ormus

Kosseegan wrote: »

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not stupid. Your subsequent rude comments and rephrasing of the question have shown me the error of my ways.

I really can't tell if you're being serious or not. You keep changing your story. Maybe you're just confused. Either way, I think we should put this to bed. So long.

Kosseegan

Ormus wrote: »

I really can't tell if you're being serious or not.

It must be terrible to be stupid.