Selling method for disputed property

sapper

If a property is owned jointly by two people and one of those two people wants to sell the property outright, it is my understanding that legally that property must be sold regardless of whether or not the other person wants to sell.

However, what is the understanding regarding the method of sale? Say one co-owner wants to sell by private treaty and the other wants to sell by public auction - does it have to be sold by public auction if the two parties can't agree? If so, does the co-owner who wants to sell by private treaty have any recourse?

And if it has to be sold by auction, can the party who wanted to sell by private treaty stipulate a reserve price for the auction? Or can the party who wanted to sell by auction stipulate no reserve price against the others wishes? (In the hope of buying the property outright at the auction at a low price)

padser

From a legal point of view it depends on what you mean by a house is 'owned' by two people. 'owned' is a very vague word, especially when dealing with land.

A general answer would be that if a property is held in say 'joint tenancy' and one party wishes to sell they may do so, however they can only sell 'their' share of the house. If that sounds complicated, it is, but the general rule would probably be that you cant normally be forced to sell your rights.

Japer

Interesting. I am sure that must leave many situations difficult - who would want to buy a half share in a house with a stranger ? How does this situation usually get resolved if the 2 people who own the house 50 / 50 do not get on and one wants to keep his / her share and the other wants to sell ? Lets assume neither lives in the house.

Jo King

padser wrote: »

From a legal point of view it depends on what you mean by a house is 'owned' by two people. 'owned' is a very vague word, especially when dealing with land.

A general answer would be that if a property is held in say 'joint tenancy' and one party wishes to sell they may do so, however they can only sell 'their' share of the house. If that sounds complicated, it is, but the general rule would probably be that you cant normally be forced to sell your rights.

The usual method of dealing with this is an application under the Partition Acts with and order for sale in lieu of partition. It happens frequently that property is sold even though one of the co-owners does not want it.
When a dispute arises the court can give directions as to an appropriate method of sale.

Japer

Thanks for that. It reminds me of 2 brothers , neither of whom lives in their ( deceased ) parents house, who own the house jointly, and one of whom wants to sell ; the other uses it as a holiday home. Could one brother insist on the house being rented , as its unfair he pays 50% of the upkeep if the other brother gets all the use of the property ?

What would be the best way to deal with the contents of a house, if two people "owned" them. Lets say they inherited the contents of the house jointly. The usual sort ( well, not very unusual ) of house contents ; say furniture, tv, some home electronics ( dvd etc ), a few small antiques ( of sentimental value mostly ), lawnmower, a few sets of golf clubs and some bottles of drink in cabinet. The 2 brothers do not get on. It would be difficult to value old house contents, and I suspect most would be worth very little. What would the best way to divide the possessions / momentoes parents accumulate over a lifetime be ? An auctioneer would not find it worth his while trying to value household items, utensals or small antiques (of sentimental value ) or some tools and lawnmower in shed ? A house auction would not raise much I suspect, after auctioneers fees / advertising etc, and would attract nosy neighbours etc. How do people practically deal with the issue ? Draw up a list and "let the 2 people take picks", i.e. person A chooses something, person B chooses something, person A chooses something, person B chooses something,etc.