Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

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

325 replies

Confused20232023 · 18/10/2023 13:28

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.

OP posts:
Azaleah · 18/10/2023 20:25

@MargotBamborough 🤣🤣🤣 Thanks, doc 😂

FSTraining · 18/10/2023 20:39

MargotBamborough · 18/10/2023 18:34

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

Show quote history

I'm legally qualified but not an expert in this area. That said, I don't think occupational rent would carry any weight unless it was agreed up front. At the same time though, the agreement between the sisters would carry weight and a court would look for a resolution that was fair to both parties.

Both sisters would be fools to go to court in my opinion though. The fees will probably not be worth it but also one thing I've learned is that as you get older friends come and go. You don't want to lose a sister.

MargotBamborough · 18/10/2023 20:54

FSTraining · 18/10/2023 20:39

I'm legally qualified but not an expert in this area. That said, I don't think occupational rent would carry any weight unless it was agreed up front. At the same time though, the agreement between the sisters would carry weight and a court would look for a resolution that was fair to both parties.

Both sisters would be fools to go to court in my opinion though. The fees will probably not be worth it but also one thing I've learned is that as you get older friends come and go. You don't want to lose a sister.

Show quote history

There's nothing for the court to get involved in here.

The OP has written evidence that her sister agreed to cover the cost of the mortgage repayments when she was enjoying sole occupation of the property.

The sister has no written evidence that they agreed to adjust their respective shares in the property accordingly. In the absence of any agreement that they owned the property in unequal shares, it was 50:50 and the sister can go whistle.

It really is that simple.

I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a sister who had decided to renege on what we agreed upon and was threatening to sue me.

Azaleah · 18/10/2023 20:56

@FSTraining 'You don't want to lose a sister'. I think it's a bit late for that.

In relation to occupational rent, perhaps not relevant legally, but the fact that her sister hasn't raised the mortgage payment issue before the sale is an indication that they have implicitly agreed mortgage = rent. If they have already split 50-50 I can't see how her sister can win this in court.

EasterFlower · 18/10/2023 21:01

SurprisedWithAHorse · 18/10/2023 19:56

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.

In practical terms it basically is considered rent, by everyone except the OPs sister, who wants the OP to return that money to her. If you rent a flat for 2yrs and the landlord sells it, you don't demand he gives you back your rental payments.

FSTraining · 18/10/2023 23:22

Azaleah · 18/10/2023 20:56

@FSTraining 'You don't want to lose a sister'. I think it's a bit late for that.

In relation to occupational rent, perhaps not relevant legally, but the fact that her sister hasn't raised the mortgage payment issue before the sale is an indication that they have implicitly agreed mortgage = rent. If they have already split 50-50 I can't see how her sister can win this in court.

I think it's more the case that you don't need to bring it up. It's probably a joint tenancy, 50/50 split and a court won't be massively keen to deviate from that if one party paid the mortgage and had sole occupancy for two years. Courts will generally look for the intent of the parties too and there doesn't seem to have been any prior intent for anything other than a 50/50 split.

FSTraining · 18/10/2023 23:29

SurprisedWithAHorse · 18/10/2023 19:56

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.

I think you need to understand it is nothing like a landlord because of the mortgage product used. The OP shared a residential mortgage with her sister. Being named on that mortgage would have meant she couldn't get another mortgage of her own. She would also have been subject to an extra 3% SDLT if she tried to buy another property. She did her sister a favour by staying on that mortgage for 2 years.

If it had been a buy to let mortgage, it would have been slightly different and the OP could still have gotten a residential mortgage for themselves.

This misunderstanding is common with Mesher Orders as people don't tend to realise there is a value in being able to borrow money to invest. Using someone else's mortgage capacity would make people a lot of money if we didn't have rules to give people their fair share when the property is sold.

anonibubble · 19/10/2023 18:06

Tempnamechng · 18/10/2023 13:35

You can't expect 50% of the sale proceeds if you haven't been contributing to the asset purchase for 2 years.

Yes, this. And it isn't just the mortgage, there are other costs such as maintenance that you would have to split if you want half the proceeds. It would be reasonable for her to pay council tax (assuming you were paying it elsewhere) and fuel bills.

changeme4this · 19/10/2023 18:31

I would dig that email out which outlined the agreement and send it back to her. Make no further comment.

we have won in court using email correspondence as to proof of an agreement

Lindyloomillion1 · 19/10/2023 18:35

I think you should get half the net proceeds from the sale minus the mortgage you didn't pay for 2 years and the equity during that time which should be added to your sister's share

Jebatronic · 19/10/2023 18:38

It’s not whole mortgage payment vs rent - most of the mortgage payment is interest. So if you take the view that one should be set against the other, then the party that wanted to move should not be penalised for do the kind thing and waiting to sell.
Therefore is should be the small part of the mortgage that went toward CAPITAL repayment should be set against rent meaning that the party that caused the delay would probably owe the party that wanted to sell a substantial amount.
Unless of course both parties agreed to some other arrangement and both parties are still happy with it.
The party that delayed the sale of the joint asset might be better off keeping things sweet.

BarelyCoping123 · 19/10/2023 18:38

@Collaborate is correct
Stand your ground OP

Zerosleep · 19/10/2023 18:54

I would seek legal advice but I would be arguing that you should have been paid rent while she resided there on her own and that rent you would have then paid as your 50% of the monthly mortgage contribution.

Feedthatgoat · 19/10/2023 19:30

The sister did get to live there for 2 years. If she had to rent a property it would probably have been roughly the same amount she paid. So it really didnt cost her any extra did it?.

2jacqi · 19/10/2023 19:31

but the room was ALWAYS available for OP to move back in if she so wished so why should the sister pay rent for the other half of the flat which was not used????

threatmatrix · 19/10/2023 19:50

But surely you didn’t expect an equal share of the profit?

Butterfly44 · 19/10/2023 19:50

I would say you owe her money. You should have had equal from the sale as she essentially paid more in. You were jointly liable for mortgage regardless that you moved in with bf

saffy2 · 19/10/2023 19:56

Confused20232023 · 18/10/2023 13:33

Yes, the sale has already completed and solicitors paid us both equally. We also shared the sale costs equally as well.

Show quote history

Then yes, you do owe her for the mortgage payments. You can’t expect to receive your entire share of the sale when you haven’t contributed to the entirety of the mortgage. And probably had you not taken equal share she wouldn’t now be doing this. But you have benefited from her continuing to pay the mortgage for you.

CliantheLang · 19/10/2023 20:16

How is it that so many posters (pretend to) understand the concept of equity but not the concept of rent?

OP owes her sister nothing, either morally or in law.

Yeetpetite · 19/10/2023 20:56

Why should you gain the same amount from the sale when you have contributed much less to the mortgage? I’m with your sister on this and feel you’ve been unfair to her knowing full well you haven’t paid anything into the mortgage pot for 2 years but still expect to get the same amount??

MargotBamborough · 19/10/2023 20:58

Yeetpetite · 19/10/2023 20:56

Why should you gain the same amount from the sale when you have contributed much less to the mortgage? I’m with your sister on this and feel you’ve been unfair to her knowing full well you haven’t paid anything into the mortgage pot for 2 years but still expect to get the same amount??

Why do you think her sister was entitled to occupy all of a flat she only owned half of for two years without paying any rent to the co-owner?

MargotBamborough · 19/10/2023 21:01

Feedthatgoat · 19/10/2023 19:30

The sister did get to live there for 2 years. If she had to rent a property it would probably have been roughly the same amount she paid. So it really didnt cost her any extra did it?.

It cost her less, which is why she refused to sell.

YoBeaches · 19/10/2023 21:15

2jacqi · 19/10/2023 19:31

but the room was ALWAYS available for OP to move back in if she so wished so why should the sister pay rent for the other half of the flat which was not used????

Edited

Because she didn't want it to be used. She paid for the privilege of having the entire property to herself. They could have let to cover the costs but she didn't want to.

It's 50/50 here to be honest. You owned the property 50/50 regardless of who paid what. And your sister benefitted from your share of any deposit in buying the property and wanted the whole place to herself.

It's a shame it's got you a threats of legal action mind, can you find a compromise somewhere?

prh47bridge · 19/10/2023 21:17

I see people are still piling in with incorrect advice despite lawyers explaining the law several times on this thread. OP does not owe her sister anything.

Shroedy · 19/10/2023 21:17

Yeetpetite · 19/10/2023 20:56

Why should you gain the same amount from the sale when you have contributed much less to the mortgage? I’m with your sister on this and feel you’ve been unfair to her knowing full well you haven’t paid anything into the mortgage pot for 2 years but still expect to get the same amount??

As repeatedly set out by the lawyers on this thread:

  • because that's what she's legally entitled to
  • because that's what she agreed with her sister when the sister didn't want to sell or have a roommate
  • because by agreeing not to sell and allow her sister to live there alone, OP has therefore missed out on any rent she could have got for her half of the flat, the use of her capital, interest she could have earned and so on.

Take your pick.