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.

Why do you think the occupational rent argument wouldn't hold up in court? Do you have any legal qualifications?

@sandyhappypeople you're entirely missing the point. The mortgage was paid so she has met her obligation. That was an obligation to the mortgage company (which is discharged, regardless of who paid it), not an obligation to her sister and has no impact on the success of any potential claim from the sister (which has no basis in law). The rent argument isn't relevant to this either (albeit helps explain why the sister is not entitled to anything in equity, either).

Sincerely, a lawyer.

If you were liable to pay half the mortgage then she should have been paying you rent as you didn't have the benefit of occupation

No?
I also didn't miss that op suited herself, moved out and left her sister entirely responsible for their joint property, and yet still expects half of the sake proceeds.

I am merely suggesting that, if the 2 sisters want to salvage their relationship, they may want to come to an amicable agreement, and a joint consultation with a solicitor might help facilitate that.

The really interesting thing about this post is how - with the same facts in front of us - there are so many wildly different moral views. I guess a good indication of why it’s so hard to keep everyone happy!!!

So what? None of that is remotely relevant to who owns it and in what proportions.

She didn't want her sister to be entirely responsible for their joint property. She wanted to sell up and get her money out. Her sister wanted to stay in it and did so. I have no idea who you think should have been responsible for the costs, if not the person who had chosen to enjoy sole occupancy of a house they only owned half of.

If the sister wants to salvage their relationship she could try not making baseless threats to sue the OP.

@PaminaMozart a lawyer will advise on the law, which is pretty clear cut in OPs favour. Yes, we can help mediate to resolve a dispute but we're not counsellors and will mediate around the legal reality and risks.

Indeed.

The OP has written evidence showing that her sister agreed to take over the mortgage payments for the period when she was enjoying sole occupancy of the property.

The sister does not have any written evidence showing that they agreed to alter their respective shares of the property as a consequence. Because they didn't.

Unless there was a document establishing unequal ownership then they owned it 50:50. There clearly wasn't one, because if there had been, they would have been paid the proceeds of the sale in those proportions.

Don't know why anyone thinks the sister has a leg to stand on.

Is it possible though that house prices have actually dropped in the last two years, and OP lost money by not being able to sell it at the earlier point?

Agree with this. Presumably she then enjoyed the whole flat to herself whilst you paid rent elsewhere?! Stand your ground OP.

Hold on. The sister paid the whole of the mortgage payments. That’s as good as rent.

I really don't understand all the people saying this.

If your sister had extracted money from you, which you'd paid to shut her up/it was cheaper than defending yourself in court, that you didn't legally owe or have a moral agreement with her to pay it. Would you really want to play happy families with her after that? I'd be taking the stance that she'd effectively stolen thousands from me and wanting nothing more to do with her.

Even if I hadn't ended up giving her money, I wouldn't want anything to do with her again unless she apologized to me for threatening to sue me!

She certainly wouldn't go back to being my best buddy after pulling a stunt like that, apology or not.

Saving the relationship would also involve OP brushing her sister's grabby behaviour under the carpet and pretending it never happened.

I used to live a life like that. Ignoring bad behaviour in the name of keeping the peace, so these people would stay part of my life. Now I'm older and wiser it's fair to say that none of the people I did that for were worth it, none of those relationships were worth it and the majority of them aren't in my life any more.

Thanks to the solicitors who have explained the situation.

I get that the point is that the sister was enjoying sole occupancy of the flat. But she was also covering sole payment for it, so she was only getting what she paid for. OP, meanwhile, was enjoying ownership of the asset just like any landlord. Why is the sister's coverage of OP's half of the mortgage not considered to be rent? If I rent a house, I pay my landlord's mortgage on it even though he doesn't live there, and he enjoys ownership of it.

Let her sue, counterclaim for market rent for your half of the beneficial interest on the property.

I very much suspect half a market rent is more than she paid in mortgage.

Not if she is now wanting the mortgage payments. Yes the mortgage payment should count as rent or towards rent. She can't have it both ways.

If it's considered to be rent then why is she threatening suing her sister for not paying the mortgage? She paid the 'rent' (mortgage), and they split 50-50 of the sale's money. End of story.

@SurprisedWithAHorse I'm actually agreeing with you btw 😂

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. That's why I'm asking those who are why covering OP's share of the mortgage while OP didn't live there isn't considered in law to be rent.

Well yes, that was her rent, only now she's threatening to sue the OP to get it back, as if she's forgotten the fact that she had sole occupancy.

Ooh, I know the answer to this.

It's because she's a CF.

@MargotBamborough I'm not a social media freak, what's a CF? 😂Btw, I thought you have been murdered by that nasty nurse 😂

People can argue about this all day. For good or ill, the courts deal with these disputes all the time although more commonly in divorces. In cases that are not divorces and there are no children the norm is an order for sale and a 50/50 split, as normally owners have been in a joint tenancy. That would have happened if the sisters had dispute what happened to the property 2 years ago.

Fast forward to today. Because this didn't happen, almost all the examples of what should happen exist in divorce law. Normally, the occupier pays the mortgage and then the house is eventually sold and split 50/50 (divorce might take other factors into account and vary the split, but the mortgage point is more important here).

Some knowledge of finance is important to understand why this happens. Not everyone can get a mortgage big enough to buy a property so a mortgage capacity has value. So does capital already invested. If someone else is using yours and gaining from doing so, it is only right you get your fair share at sale not just of the capital but the use of the mortgage.

Anyone who doesn't understand this should never go into a Mesher Order by the way!

CF is Mumsnet speak for cheeky fucker!

And yes, my ghost is typing this message through concrete. 😂