My sister wants to sue me to for mortgage payments on our joint flat, even though I didn't live there

[Confused20232023]

My sister and I bought a flat together about 6 years ago (our parents helped us with the deposit if that matters) which we lived in together. About 2 years ago we talked about selling the flat because I wanted to move in with my boyfriend. My sister couldn't afford to buy me out so we agreed that she would pay the mortgage and all bills on the flat until we sold. We have this in writing on email and Whatsapp texts, and we also discussed this with our parents.

We eventually sold the flat (a whole story to itself!), and now my sister is saying that I should have paid the mortgage over the 2 years (when I wasn't living there), and is threatening to sue me to make me pay. Does she have a case if we have something in writing to say that she would pay all mortgage and bills while she lived there? I'm getting worried as we can't afford to pay her, and my boyfriend and I are planning on starting a family, so every pound counts!

We are in England.

How much she thinks you should pay for the two years you weren’t there? She might not be have paid you rent but then, you were not paying the mortgage so I would say that you need to pay her what you didn’t pay in those 2 years.

Trying to see the positives, it is very likely that the price of the flat went up in those 2 years so it is not as if you have been disadvantaged greatly by delaying the sale.

No OP you do not owe your sister anything as the retention of the flat was for her benefit not yours.

As pp's have said, if anything, she should have paid you rent for your room as she didn't want to let it.
If she insists on taking it further then calculate how much half of the mortgage payments were due from when you left until it sold, then calculate how much a half share of the rent would have been for the same period.

Not true. The sister pays 100% of the mortgage in lieu of rent to the OP for sole use of the property.

There is one of these threads every week at the moment!

Are you aware of recent developments in the property market?

Interest rates have shot up and prices are on their way down. They might well have been better off selling two years ago.

It seems very unfair that you are both benefitting equally from the sale, when she alone paid the mortgage for 2 years. I’m not able to comment on the legalities, however, just the moral dilemma.

Equal shares in equity up to the point you moved out and let your sister take over your share of the mortgage payments. I think your sister is entitled to all the equity for the period she paid the whole of the mortgage on her own, otherwise you profit at her expense. Not sure how you both stand legally though; it depends if she can prove you made no contribution during that period, how binding your e-mail agreements are etc. Either come to an amicable arrangement or seek legal clarification. The cost of running the household, and paying associated bills, I would think would be her expense alone as she was using the utilities etc. Exception might be house insurance costs which I think should have been split equally.

Don't know on that one tbf, I think it's more likely as the mortgage papers are legally binding documents, where you enter in to a contract to each pay your share, just because one of you decides not to pay anymore and the other covers it doesn't mean that from a legal standpoint you're excused from those payments, I wouldn't like to risk it personally, but I'd like to think if this was me and my sister we'd discuss it and sort it out amicably, with a bit of give and take on both sides.

Plus I'd want to know what has prompted my sister to go down this (quite extreme) route in the first place, like everything on here, we'll never get the full story.

The capital is a non issue though, if OP really needed the capital she had channels available to have forced the sale, she obviously didn't, so she didn't.

If your sister is stating she intends to sue you then it’s fairly obvious from what the solicitors are posting on here that she hasn’t actually taken any legal advice. It’s also seems v likely that if rent/ mortgage calculations are taken into account it will come out about even.
I would view your sisters threats as empty but it could be very helpful if you could both have a joint session with a solicitor who would explain the legal situation to your sister devoid of any emotions. A logical calm explanation by an uninvolved party might defuse things between you. She believes you have treated her unfairly because I think the idea of her having to pay rent to you to allow her sole use of a property owned by both of you has not even occurred to her.
That makes it crystal clear that she has taken no legal advice at this point and with some clarity she might realise that the division of assets has been fair.

The OP and her sister would have been jointly and severally liable for the mortgage repayments. That means the bank doesn't give a shit which of them pays as long as someone does.

The OP could probably have forced a sale but it would have been expensive and totally trashed her relationship with her sister. Instead she allowed her sister to carry on benefiting at her expense for two years and now look how her sister is repaying her. No good deed goes unpunished.

This could have been avoided had the flat been sold when you moved out, but as it wasn't and you left her to pay the lot I think it's completely reasonable for you to pay her something to cover those mortgage payments now. You couldn't afford to contribute at the time but now you can pay her from your share. She shouldn't need to sue you to achieve this!

You should have been paying 50%of the mortgage if you want 50% of the profit from the sale

Would you then agree it would be reasonable for the sister to pay the OP rent for the two years she enjoyed sole occupancy of a flat half owned by the OP as well?

You haven't done anything wrong, OP. You came to an agreement between you and that should hold. Your sister preferred to have the whole flat to herself than have you cover half of it via a lodger. She made her choice then.

@sandyhappypeople that's not how mortgages work. The agreement is about who they can pursue for non-payment (both or either / or if there are multiple mortgage holders - they could have pursued either or both of OP or her sister for part or all of any non-payment), not who makes the payments. Aside from any anti anti-money laundering concerns, any Tom, Dick or Harry can make payments on a mortgage.

Did you miss the part where the OP said she wanted to sell it but her sister refused? And the part where she suggested her sister get a lodger and that was also refused?

You pay 50% of mortgage payments for the 2 years and she pays you rent for your room for the same period. Rent might actually be higher than mortgage payments so she may owe you!!!!!!

Did you keep things there when you moved out or was it regarded by both of you as your sister's home? Did you have keys and still feel you could go there at any time? Legally you are jointly responsible for the mortgage but if you had no benefit from/right to enjoy the property then she should have been paying you for that.

10 pages of mostly nonsense. Let your sister sue, she'll get nowhere.

I've owned 50% of a house for 20 years. Never paid a penny towards the mortgage or the utilities. I'd still be entitled to 50% of the equity if it were sold.

People who say OP should have 50% of the equity as it was 2 years ago are ignoring the interest she would have earned over the last 2 years if her sister had agreed to sell. Or maybe she would have liked to use the money as a deposit to buy a new place! It would have been simpler if sister had bought her out 2 years ago, but she did not, and the time line was controlled by the sister. As many have said, the rent she could have got from a lodger would probably have covered the mortgage if her sister had permitted that.

OP - I believe you are legally and morally entitled to your 50% of the net sale proceeds unless your DSIS has paid any lump sum off the mortgage. At most, you could offer to pay 50% of the capital element of mortgage payments over the last 2 years, which is probably fairly small.

That's not what we're discussing, it's not the payment to the mortgage company that is being questioned as they were being paid, it's whether OPs sister would be successful in taking OP to court to try and get that money from OP.

The counter sue 'rent' argument that's being banded about doesn't look like it would hold up in court, whereas OP had a standing legal responsibility to pay her half of the mortgage payments.

It's the question of whether it's more likely that OPs sister would be successfully awarded the mortgage payments then it would for OP to be awarded rent payments.

During the 2 years that you lived together did you pay an equal share of the mortgage or was it an uneven split? Did either of you put your own savings in to the deposit or did it all come from your parents?

The current sale price of the house is made up of:

A) the deposit put down by your parents (and any additional from you/your sister)
B) the increase in value of the property between when you bought it and when you stopped paying into the mortgage
C) The amount of equity increase bought by the amount of mortgage paid off while you were contributing to the mortgage
D) the increase in value of the property between when you stopped paying into the mortgage and now
E) The increase in equity bought by the amount of mortgage paid off by your sister on her own after you stopped paying
F) any significant expenses your sister has incurred while managing the house solo that you didn't contribute to without which the house wouldn't be saleable (e.g. if she had to put in a boiler - or in the case of the other thread the sister had had additional legal fees because the house was rented out and trashed/tenants needed evicting) such that the "real" sale price should be considered lower by this amount
And finally G) the amount still owed to the bank.

Calculate all those numbers and check they add up to the sale price

You are due a fair share of (A) in obvious proportion to what was put in, assuming that the gift from your parents was 50:50 to both of you. (B) should be shared in the same proportion as (A).
(C) should be shared in the same proportion as your contributions to the mortgage repayments - so only 50:50 if you were paying half.
(D) (E) and (F) all belong 100% to your sister
(G) belongs to the bank.

I don't think OP has done anything wrong. Her sister couldn't afford to buy her out but with OP's name on the mortgage she got to stay in her home and accrue equity in an asset she could not afford at the market value when OP moved out.

OP has accepted the liability of her Sister defaulting on the mortgage and impacting her own credit rating.

I think the Sister is being a CF. She chose sole occupancy of the property which denied OP the opportunity to rent her room out to cover the mortgage. I think the Sister wants to have her cake and eat it.

If the flat was not formally valued at the time OP moved out then there would be no fair way of calculating exactly how much equity had accrued in two years.

Ob behalf of all the lawyers on this thread, we think that all of you who still confidently maintain that the sister is entitled to more than half (and bear in mind OP has already received her half - bit of a hint there really) are fools.

We admire your confidence (how many of you think that misplaced confidence on a field you know nothing about is purely a male trait?) but to be frank, stay well clear of any medical message boards. Lord knows how many deaths you'll cause.

Please stop talking nonsense.

They are entitled to 50% each.

All of this.

But quite apart from the legal aspect, which these posters clearly know nothing about, I have no idea why anybody thinks the sister should have been entitled to occupy the OP's half of the house for free for two years.

Or why anybody thinks telling the OP to just be nice and bung her sister some cash is good advice.