Joint tenants or tenants in common?

[LakieLady]

A young family member has recently split from their partner. The partner was controlling, especially in financial matters, and family member is naive and quite vulnerable. They were not married, and family member has no support from their own parents.

They were living in a flat that they were buying together, and the ex-partner wants to "buy her out". The partner has made an offer that appears pretty derisory. Family member has no idea whether the property was held as joint tenants or tenants in common. The ex-partner made a greater contribution to the deposit, and wants to give family member just the deposit amount, even though the value of the property has risen. They have no idea if the family member's "share" is held in the same proportion as the deposit, or if they would be entitled to half of it.

Am I right in thinking that, if we got a copy of the title deeds, this would be shown?

TIA.

This article explains it: www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-jan-apr-2017/do-tenants-in-common-need-a-declaration-of-trust/

It may or may not be on the transfer deed, did they do a declaration of trust? You could also advise her to contact the conveyancers they did the purchase with as they should have a record of how they registered the property.

Tell them not to agree to anything until they know the facts.

Even if the property is owned as tenants in common, the starting point is that she is entitled to 50% of the equity regardless of the fact he paid most of the deposit. To get a bigger share, her ex needs to show that there was a common intention that he should get more or show that they entered into a declaration of trust, giving him more. Note that a declaration of trust is only valid if it was properly drawn up, she entered into it willingly with a full understanding of what it meant, and she signed it in the presence of a witness.

Thank you!

I suggested they contacted the solicitors, who would know, but they can't remember which firm dealt with it.

I'm quite shocked, tbh, they're far from stupid, and I knew they were a bit unworldly, but I had no idea that they had so little idea what they were doing.

They're 28, too, so it's not like they're really young.

Get a copy of the register from Land Registry it only costs £3. www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry

This should indicate if the property is held as joint tenants or tenants in common.

This isn’t true when you are not married. If they are tenants in common and she has a 25% share, there’s no way she is getting 50%.

Or show that she isn’t registered as a tenant at all. She might be merely an occupier with no rights.

She needs to hold on until the facts are established. The Deed of Trust should be registered on the deeds, but it may not say what the exact details are. She needs to know what it says and refuse to sign anything until she has seen the actual document.

If he is that controlling then he will have kept copies of everything.

@Discovereads with respect you don't know what you are talking about. Leave the legal advice to people who do.

@Discovereads read what @prh47bridge said, "the starting point is that she is entitled to 50%". She then goes on to explain about common intention. She is absolutely correct in what she has advised.

@akabluebell sadly @Discovereads may be right. The register will confirm the legal owners.

However, @Discovereads if there is no deed of trust stating % ownership, the starting point is 50% as @prh47bridge says.

If ours was anything to go by, there would have been some paperwork (declaration/deed of trust) that your relative would have had to get legal advice on and sign if it was bought as tenants in common.

Regardless, one big learning for her is to pay attention to financial matters and make sure she has some kind of records. Too many people get manipulated into tricky financial situations and only find out when the shit hits the fan

What I have written is absolutely correct for unmarried couples.

I did not say she would get 50% if she has a 25% share. However, the size of contributions to the deposit is irrelevant even if they are tenants in common. She only has a 25% share if there was a common intention that she should only have 25% or if there is a declaration of trust specifying that she only gets 25%.

That's incorrect

If you are tenants in common and you put down on the land registry forms 25/75 or some other %, that's what will be the starting point for negotiation. Not 50/50.

If nothing is noted as to split, starting point would be 50/50.

You said:
“Even if the property is owned as tenants in common, the starting point is that she is entitled to 50% of the equity regardless of the fact he paid most of the deposit.”

Thats only the starting point if 50/50 is written on there for tenants in common or default if no split is specified at all. And in vast majority of cases it does say something other than nothing or 50/50 because if it’s 50/50 than what is usually chosen is joint tenants when no children from prior relationships exist(as in this case).

Exactly.

You must have missed this bit in the OP which is actually very important:
The partner was controlling, especially in financial matters, and family member is naive and quite vulnerable.

There are many vulnerable women who thought they were buying together with a partner and the mortgage was only in his name (for qualifying reasons or excuses like oh we got a lower interest rate if he’s just on the mortgage because I had a CCJ) and then when they split, they find out that title deeds are a thing (you’d be surprised how many don’t even know these exist) and lo and behold only his name is on the title deeds and they are only an occupier.

They gave him money for a deposit. They paid part of the mortgage via him. But when they split up, they find out he was a financially controlling bastard. It’s a form of domestic abuse but by god it happens. And the OP has said the partner had form for financial abuse. So it’s a real possibility.

So, you want to take a single sentence from my post, ignore the rest of it and use that to claim I am wrong.

If there is a record of an unequal split at the Land Registry, that is evidence that there was a common intention or a declaration of trust that the equity should not be split 50/50.

As per my original post, the starting point for the courts would be a 50/50 split. He needs to show a common intention that he should get more or a declaration of trust saying he should get more to prove that he is entitled to more. If he is unable to show either of those things, he will not be entitled to more. The fact he has paid more of the deposit is irrelevant. If a different split is recorded at the Land Registry, that is evidence to support his contention that he should get more. It is not necessarily conclusive. If, for example, the OP's family member can show that she signed the declaration of trust under duress or without understanding what it meant, the courts may be willing to disregard any split recorded on the TR1.

If, in fact, he owns the property outright, OP's family member may still be able to claim a portion of the equity. The fact she put up some of the deposit may give her a claim.

So, you want to take a single sentence from my post, ignore the rest of it and use that to claim I am wrong.

Its more what you implied by saying “the starting point is 50/50” like it’s what usually happens when that is actually quite rare in a tenants in common scenario.

It is actually extremely common in a tenants in common scenario. A mixture of people not thinking about what should happen if they split, people believing that any split will automatically be in proportion to the deposit (which seems to be a common myth) and people genuinely intending that any split will be 50/50 means that many tenants in common do not have anything recorded at the Land Registry to contradict a 50/50 split.

Perhaps we have different experience then or your comments are unfiltered- as in not taking into account the other data. But from what I’ve seen of tenants in common among childless unmarried young couples where one is “naive and vulnerable” and the other is “financially controlling”, it’s rare.

I give up ...