selling jointly-owned property

Reg

Just wondered if anybody had any knowledge or experience of a situation like mine. I am joint owner of a house bought three years ago with my ex partner (we were not married). Shortly after we split up and now live in separate residences, said house having being used as a weekend home. Although the property deeds and mortgage are in both our names, I have financed, and am still financing, the entire operation, with many years of mortgage still to go. We are both now in new relationships and I now wish/need to sell the property. Despite having financed everything, I totally agree to give my ex partner 50% of the money received on the house after deducting the remaining mortgage. However, given that she makes no kind of contribution whatsoever (no mortgage, tax, repairs...), she stands to gain far more if I pay the entire mortgage off, while I have everything to lose. I saw some interesting articles on another thread (buying together) about how sensible people who are buying a house together make special agreements in the event of the relationship breaking up, or one party wanting to sell the house and the other wanting to hang on to it. Unfortunately I’m not one of those people and I would like to hear if anyone knows the procedure to follow if when one partner steadfastly refuses to sell, or buy the other out. I believe that in the event of one co-owner wanting to sell, the other owner can eventually be made to sell by taking them to court, but what happens if the other simply does not appear for court hearings, or does everything to make the process as long and as drawn out as possible while refusing to make any kind of contribution?
In this case could anyone tell me if the person who does not want to sell, or places obstacles in the selling process, can be obliged to repay costs incurred (non-payment of their part of the mortgage, legal costs, etc.) from the moment the other owner makes clear his wish to sell, and is looking for or has found a buyer?
Would very much appreciate any insights if anyone has found themselves in a similar situation.
Thanks!

MorningStar

There are really two views on this.

1) You divide the profit on the house based on the portions paid off by each. If you paid 70% of the mortgage payments you get 70% of the profit (or loss). The problem is sometimes in relationships one person pays one set of bills and anothers pays the other so there is not an easy view on who paid what.

2) Each memember of the couple is seen as equal and share all items with a 50-50 split. Can be seen as fair because the relationship may have prevented the chance to buy a property on their own.

Ultimately your partner has a equal right to the property as their name is on the deeds. If they feel a 70-30 split (or something similar) is fair then you are alright. Your first call is to ask them and hope they are fair.

Reg

Many thanks for your prompt response Morning star. It makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately given that I have paid 100% of the original and ongoing purchase (I put the deeds in both our names, and am paying a mortgage in both our names- you live and learn!), all the bills, all the furniture, all the upkeep, all the taxes, and my ex still thinks I should pay the remaining 20 years or so of mortgage in its entirety and THEN hand over half the house over to her, I’m not too optimistic about a fair appraisal on her part in the near future! (this is not a primary residence, it is a weekend house that I cannot afford to keep in these circumstances).

I’m quite prepared to hand over 50% of the benefits to date (even though we separated soon after the purchase three years ago), and just put it down to a very expensive lesson in life, learnt the hard way. What I would really appreciate is if anyone out there has been through a similar process, i.e. trying to sell a property you co-own in the face of vehement, and if you will permit my saying so, unreasonable opposition. I am also very interested, as I mentioned in the original post, in knowing if there is any legal provision for deducting any expenses occurred (i.e. the fact that I will have to continue meantime to have to pay all her part of the mortgage, bills, upkeep – not to mention legal bills) during the time it takes from the refusal of a co-owner to sell and the conclusion of a court case and subsequent sale of the house. My idea is that if this point of law exists, I could use it as leverage not to convert this into an interminable process involving a court case.

Thanks again anyone who can help.

Bluetonic

You'd be better off popping over to www.AskAboutMoney.com

Your post would probably get more viewings over there and theres a better likelihood of you getting sound advice.

Good luck.

Reg

Thanks very much indeed for your advice Bluetonic, sounds like an excellent idea and I'll certainly give it a try!

the_syco

I haven't a clue, but...

Who is on the loan/mortgage? If both of you are on it, how much rent has she paid (if any). Then ask a lawyer is it possible, because she no longer pays any of it, nor lives there, to get your name soley on the mortgage deeds, so only you have to pay? Then you may have more ground to stand on. Get details from the bank to see from which accounts the money was paid for, and for what amount. Then see if you can give just that amount to the ex, and get full ownership of the house?

Just a thought.

Victor

Turn the tables on her. Have her buy you out.

Reg

Many thanks Victor and Syco for taking the time to reply.

Victor, unfortunately she is not in an economic position to buy me out (nor I to buy her out, even if she would let me, hence I am desperate to sell), but your suggestion made me think that if she can't/won't buy me out, then surely she must be obliged to let me sell and divide the proceeds? Particularly if she can't/wont help with the mortgage and costs (of what is effectively a weekend cottage).

Syco, both our names are on the loan and the deeds. I have funded every aspect of the purchase and maintenance of the house. When I go to a lawyer, as I will inevitably have to at some point, I will certainly ask if this alternative exists in the case of an absolute stalemate in the selling process. For many complicated reasons I am currently prepared to go 50/50 on the benefits of the sale of the house if we sell it now, even if the law permits me to fight for more in the circumstances. However, if your suggestion were possible, it would provide fantastic leverage in combating her refusal to sell now with a very reasonable settlement that could disappear into thin air if I have the right to claim the percentage I have paid, i.e. everything.

Many thanks again.

MorningStar

If you can prove you paid for everything even with her name on the deeds you could claim complete ownership. There is a thing called fairness in law where by the legal names on deeds can be ignored if it is not fair (very simplistic view and explanation). There have been cases in Ireland most noticable where the mother-in-law had the house in her name but son and wife paid the mortgage. The son died and the mother-in-law tried to take ownership but as all payment had been made by the son and daughter-in law the house was given to her. Not quite the same but pretty close especially on a holiday home.

The big thing is do you have children or not with your partner? If one partner worked and funded life while the other took care of the child there is value in that and ownship rights to the house would be recogonised easily.

It doesn't sound like you are going to have a plesant break up either way so just get a lawyer and see what he says

Victor

MorningStar wrote:

If you can prove you paid for everything even with her name on the deeds you could claim complete ownership. There is a thing called fairness in law where by the legal names on deeds can be ignored if it is not fair (very simplistic view and explanation).

The legal term is "equity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity

Reg

Thanks very much for that observation MorningStar.

I do indeed have a daughter who I maintain and, although my ex partner has custody, spends at least half her non-school time with me. The house was originally bought as a home, but was only used in that context for only a little over a year, after which my partner moved out and in with a new partner – and, no, she didn’t work during that time, or since. All very complicated! But in the light of your comments I would say it’s definitely worth investigating, as a point of leverage to sell the house rather than as a way to scramble for a bigger share of the benefits.

The house is actually the one big bone of contention left of a separation process which was tough at the time – they always are I suppose – but once this is solved I’ll feel like it’s the last great weight of my shoulders, hence my desire for it to be as brief and relatively painless as possible, rather than lucrative.

Thanks Victor, for supplying the legal term!

the_syco

Erm, I'm not sure about this, but: don't let her move into the house. If she does, it'll be a case whereby she's in the house, with your daughter, and she has no means to support herself. There has been a case in England where the wife (and mother of their child) won the right to stay in the house, even though the husband had (fully) owned the house, and he had to contnue to pay the mortgage for it, or face court, on the grounds that she couldn't support herself and their child, without it.

MorningStar

Reg wrote:

...But in the light of your comments I would say it’s definitely worth investigating, as a point of leverage to sell the house rather than as a way to scramble for a bigger share of the benefits...

Sorry if I have mislead you but the child makes the situation very different. Your former partner will be seen as the primary care giver and you would be seen as the primary finance provider. That makes shared ownership 50-50. It's not quite that simple of course but effectively that is what is will happen. From All I can see it appears woman are looked at somewhat favourably when it comes to custody and property ownership. I have heard stories (may not be true) where men end up paying mortgages and not having visitation rights. It is certain that judges think the mother is the best person to take care of a child.

Reg

Thanks Syco and MorningStar!

Syco, You're right, I've heard some real horror stories in that respect. Actually I'm not too worried on that score seeing as a) we were never married, and b) I practically pay the rent of where she lives at the moment so not too much to lose there! As long as my daughter has a proper roof over her head at all times and I'm not paying out every which way but lose... Hence I reckon I should have the right to sell a house that is no longer used as a home, nor has been for the last two years, and only ever was for a year. As for visitation rights, I'm pretty sure she would not cope without me, and my daughter is just coming to an age where she wouldn't stand for it anyway. It's taken me a long time to see the light but I see it very clearly now and I just want to stop paying out in all directions - legally - while reducing frictions to a minimum.

Don't worry MorningStar, you didn't mislead me and your comments are much valued! I didn't think that having a child when you are not married would complicate things so much, legally speaking, in the case of what is now effectively a weekend cottage, but your comment certainly made me think and I have modified the list of questions I want to ask the lawyer when I go, accordingly. A child does, of course, complicate things emotionally, particularly in terms of not wanting to place her mother in a precarious position no matter how unreasonable she is, and there are plenty of other emotional and circumstantial details that I can't go into here for lack of space and for fear of boring everyone! But in this case her mother is amply provided for by myself and she has a partner. If money were no object I would have no problems paying for the cottage ad infinitem, but I'm afraid if I want to resume a life anywhere near normal I need to sell it.

Thanks again for all your help.