House in joint names

Colser

I am hoping that someone may have some advise/experience with the options available when a couple split up and how to sort out the issue of the house.Can the person leaving the house insist that it be sold? The couple are not married but have one child together. Thanks

FreudianSlippers

I'm a bit rusty on land law, but IIRC it depends on whether it's a joint tenancy or tenancy-in-common. I think there are questions as to contribution to purchase price (i.e. was it the same contribution or did one person contribute more). As far as I remember, the tenancy-in-common would mean that you are entitled to partition the house or sale in lieu or partition.

Colser

I presume joint tenancy as the mortgage was taken out jointly and is paid from a joint a/c. Someone advised me that the house cannot be sold until the child id 18 but they are not a professional so this may be incorrect.

FreudianSlippers

Colser wrote: »

I presume joint tenancy as the mortgage was taken out jointly and is paid from a joint a/c. Someone advised me that the house cannot be sold until the child id 18 but they are not a professional so this may be incorrect.

Again, not a family law expert (add it to the list!), but I believe this only applies to married couples or civil partners.

Peregrinus

In general, co-owners of property need to agree about how the property will be used/managed. If they can't agree, there is deadlock and the property goes unused/unmanaged until (a) they agree, or (b) one of them heads off to court to look for an order for the sale of the property and the division of the proceeds.

However, where the co-owners are a married couple and the context is the breakdown of their relationship, what to do with the jointly-owned property gets addressed in the wider context of how to sort out and separate their affairs generally. If they can't agree, they head off to court and the court imposes a solution which, depending on the context, may involve transfer of the house to the sole ownership of one of them, sale of the house and division of the proceeds, or the house remaining available to one of them until e.g. the children are reared, and then being sold and the proceeds divided. Or almost any other conceivable arrangement - the court's powers in this context are wide and flexible.

Any solution that the couple can agree is likly to be better, and quicker, and cheaper, than anything the court imposes, so it's in both of their interests to try and reach agreement. It may help them to visit a mediator to assist them in sorting out their affairs. They'll have to pay for mediation, but it will certainly cost less than court proceedings.

goz83

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may help them to visit a mediator to assist them in sorting out their affairs. They'll have to pay for mediation, but it will certainly cost less than court proceedings.

Free mediation services are made available where finances are tight, but there may be a waiting list.

First and foremost, the welfare of the child must be considered.

lifeandtimes

it really does depend

I am aware of a very similar situation,unmarreid couple,one child,father left house after living there a couple of months,he paid 30% of deposit,she paid 70%,he paid one or 2 months of his half of the mortgage and sh has paid the rest for the last 2 years,no contribution from him to the payments. Infact he can only prove the payments of one or two months of the mortgage and not the deposit

I believe she has been advised that if this was to go to court he would only get back part of the deposit he paid as no contribution has been made since but this will take a long time and be costly

but she has been advised to get him to sign an agreement saying he will not look to sell the house or get part of the proceeds and she pays him his part of the deposit back.saves them going to court and she still has the house without having to remortgage after trying to remove his name from the deeds which costs quite a lot of money