How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Senior Partner Your Own Question
Senior Partner
Senior Partner, Solicitor
Category: UK Family Law
Satisfied Customers: 13326
Experience:  solicitor admitted for more than 30 years
Type Your UK Family Law Question Here...
Senior Partner is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I have a sale going through on a house which is in joint names

Customer Question

I have a sale going through on a house which is in joint names with my ex (who wont move out). It is 80/20 tenants in common split. I put all the equity into the house and paid all the fees when we purchased it. I have proof of this and how we worked out the split. His share was always fully mortgages and it was bought in the understanding the equity remained mine. We bought the house for £290,000 and borrowed £160,999 on a mortgage.
The agreed selling price is £250,000 and the balance outstanding on the mortgage is £151,251.33.
He has contributed towards bills etc whilst he has been here however owes me over £2,000 towards these. He did not pay anything towards the fees when we purchased the property.
My intention is to give him 20% of the amount due back from the mortgage......
£160,999 less £151,251.33 less fees relating to the sale. Is that a totally unreasonable calculation???
Submitted: 4 years ago.
Category: UK Family Law
Expert:  Senior Partner replied 4 years ago.
Thanks for your question. Unless you can show that the agreement was that you would split 80/20 after you had been repaid your capital, I am afraid your calculation is not really a sustainable one. If you have severed the tenancy and it is 80/20 tenants in common , then legally he is entitled to 20% of the net proceeds . I understand that means you have lost money but if he disputes the position it will be difficult for you to show that the 80/20 split should be varied.

If you can can show the agreement was that you would split 80/20 after you had been repaid your capital then presumably he is entitled to nothing as the property is being sold at a loss.

If you want to justify it by reference to the amount paid then surely you should share the loss pro rata so he should receive the amount he paid i.e. 9,000 reduced by the percentage of the loss i.e. 250/290 That owudl be a better deal for you than him get 20% of the net proceeds.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

i didnt understand the last paragraph re what he should get.

Expert:  Senior Partner replied 4 years ago.
Apologies there were a couple of typos.

What I was trying to say is that if you are able to argue that he should share in the loss then the amount he paid ( by payment which reduced the mortgage) was around £9,000 and that should be reduced in proportionate the loss,. The ration of which is 250/290 or 86% so he should get 86% of £9000,

Frankly the best argument is that you are entitled to your money back first if that is what was agreed in which case he gets nothing .