Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Dibbydoos · 19/10/2023 22:52

I'd call a legal helpline if I was you to get some proper advice, but the way I read it is this...
She agreed to pay the mortgage as she was occupying the whole flat. This was agreed in writing. Then she has no case.

She was probably paying less than the rent she would have paid had you not owned a flat? If so, you could have tenanted it for 2 years and both earnt sone money from that. IE You'd have a counter claim cos her occupying the flat prevented you from using it or renting it out.

AllyArty · 19/10/2023 23:11

When u and yr sister were setting out to buy the flat did u ever discuss the various possibilities that could happen in years to come like one of u wanting to move abroad with work or a new relationship making one of u wanting to move to another area?
I hope she doesn’t sue you because it will be v hard to repair yr relationship. Not nice for the rest of yr family either.

pollymere · 20/10/2023 09:15

Any money either of you put in should be offset from the amount you got from the sale. I'd presume it went up in value whilst she was living there too.

So if she paid in £10K more than you, she should get £10k more back. It's a bit more complicated than that if you want to exclude the interest but any amount she took off the mortgage itself should definitely be hers outright.

NumberTheory · 20/10/2023 09:23

pollymere · 20/10/2023 09:15

Any money either of you put in should be offset from the amount you got from the sale. I'd presume it went up in value whilst she was living there too.

So if she paid in £10K more than you, she should get £10k more back. It's a bit more complicated than that if you want to exclude the interest but any amount she took off the mortgage itself should definitely be hers outright.

Why is the OP not entitled to payment for loaning the sister her equity while the sister benefitted from a cheaper living situation? If they’d sold at OP’s convenience instead of the sister’s, the sister would be way worse off.

CleansUpButWouldPreferNotTo · 20/10/2023 09:24

pollymere · 20/10/2023 09:15

Any money either of you put in should be offset from the amount you got from the sale. I'd presume it went up in value whilst she was living there too.

So if she paid in £10K more than you, she should get £10k more back. It's a bit more complicated than that if you want to exclude the interest but any amount she took off the mortgage itself should definitely be hers outright.

Wrong on several counts - house prices have fallen, OP would have got more if they'd sold two years previously. OP and sister had an agreement where sister stayed in the whole house and paid the mortgage and bills as sole occupier rather than sharing with a tenant.

If sister is due half the mortgage payments for the two years she lived in the house by herself, then OP is due rent on her half of the house. These days rent is more than mortgage so sister would actually owe OP money.

There was an agreement in writing - sister agreed to pay mortgage and bills in order to live rent-free in whole house.

FarEast · 20/10/2023 17:46

If you read the OPs second post she quite clearly says they paid the costs jointly.

I meant the mortgage costs for two years, not the sale costs.

strawberry2017 · 20/10/2023 18:30

How much does she want?
Realistically she had 2 other options and she chose to stay living there without pursing them. I think given this wasn't discussed when it was all going through legally I think to bring it up now is a money grab situation.

Yalta · 21/10/2023 12:31

There was an agreement in writing - sister agreed to pay mortgage and bills in order to live rent-free in whole house

Exactly what she did. What it doesn’t say is that the sister can’t then come after the op for her half of the mortgage etc when the property is sold.

You have to look at the exact wording of contracts and not assume or expect anything else.
These sort of contracts that people make themselves rely heavily on presumptions and morals and not on the words written. Unless it was on the contract the sisters signed then the other sister can come after the op for her share of the expenses, mortgage etc

  • interest
MargotBamborough · 21/10/2023 13:10

Yalta · 21/10/2023 12:31

There was an agreement in writing - sister agreed to pay mortgage and bills in order to live rent-free in whole house

Exactly what she did. What it doesn’t say is that the sister can’t then come after the op for her half of the mortgage etc when the property is sold.

You have to look at the exact wording of contracts and not assume or expect anything else.
These sort of contracts that people make themselves rely heavily on presumptions and morals and not on the words written. Unless it was on the contract the sisters signed then the other sister can come after the op for her share of the expenses, mortgage etc

  • interest

This is incorrect.

There was an agreement in writing that the sister would cover the mortgage whilst she was enjoying sole occupancy of the property.

There was no agreement, either in writing or otherwise, that they intended their shares in the property to change from 50:50.

There's a reason why people who intend to co-own property in unequal shares get their unequal shares ring-fenced and evidenced in writing. It's because if they don't do that, they are presumed to own it in equal shares.

prh47bridge · 21/10/2023 13:42

Yalta · 21/10/2023 12:31

There was an agreement in writing - sister agreed to pay mortgage and bills in order to live rent-free in whole house

Exactly what she did. What it doesn’t say is that the sister can’t then come after the op for her half of the mortgage etc when the property is sold.

You have to look at the exact wording of contracts and not assume or expect anything else.
These sort of contracts that people make themselves rely heavily on presumptions and morals and not on the words written. Unless it was on the contract the sisters signed then the other sister can come after the op for her share of the expenses, mortgage etc

  • interest

As @MargotBamborough says, the reverse is true. The sister can only come after OP for a share of the mortgage, etc., if the agreement said so. In the absence of that, OP's sister doesn't have a claim.

Shroedy · 21/10/2023 13:55

Yalta · 21/10/2023 12:31

There was an agreement in writing - sister agreed to pay mortgage and bills in order to live rent-free in whole house

Exactly what she did. What it doesn’t say is that the sister can’t then come after the op for her half of the mortgage etc when the property is sold.

You have to look at the exact wording of contracts and not assume or expect anything else.
These sort of contracts that people make themselves rely heavily on presumptions and morals and not on the words written. Unless it was on the contract the sisters signed then the other sister can come after the op for her share of the expenses, mortgage etc

  • interest

Spot the non-lawyer.

converseandjeans · 21/10/2023 17:08

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

Agree with this.

NumberTheory · 21/10/2023 17:16

converseandjeans · 21/10/2023 17:08

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

Agree with this.

Why not? It’s the only benefit OP gets for allowing her sister to borrow her equity in the house for 2 years. None of this was for OP’s benefit. Her sister has done massively better from the deal than OP has.

Longdarkcloud · 21/10/2023 20:17

This thread illustrates the frustrations of of advising many lay people on the law. They just don’t want to believe the law doesn’t say what they personally feel it ought to.
Then if and when persuaded they say that, well, the law is stupid, then.

Shroedy · 21/10/2023 20:50

Longdarkcloud · 21/10/2023 20:17

This thread illustrates the frustrations of of advising many lay people on the law. They just don’t want to believe the law doesn’t say what they personally feel it ought to.
Then if and when persuaded they say that, well, the law is stupid, then.

Totally agree with you, with the irony in this instance that actually this isn't even one of the "the law is an ass" situations - it is not only the legal position but the equitable one when you think it through. But hey ho...

PaminaMozart · 21/10/2023 22:51

Longdarkcloud · 21/10/2023 20:17

This thread illustrates the frustrations of of advising many lay people on the law. They just don’t want to believe the law doesn’t say what they personally feel it ought to.
Then if and when persuaded they say that, well, the law is stupid, then.

Yes indeed, it does.

However, there are situations where the exact letter of the law might be detrimental to one or both parties.

Here we have 2 sisters, about to fall out irrevocably, unless they sit down and try to come to an amicable, mutually acceptable agreement.

So I'd suggest looking at the law and then try to figure out something that seems reasonable.

Reasonable is such a good concept. I'd go with reasonable over 'the law'.

Collaborate · 22/10/2023 01:01

PaminaMozart · 21/10/2023 22:51

Yes indeed, it does.

However, there are situations where the exact letter of the law might be detrimental to one or both parties.

Here we have 2 sisters, about to fall out irrevocably, unless they sit down and try to come to an amicable, mutually acceptable agreement.

So I'd suggest looking at the law and then try to figure out something that seems reasonable.

Reasonable is such a good concept. I'd go with reasonable over 'the law'.

Show quote history

But you seem to define “reasonable” as the midpoint between a fair position and an extreme position.

Which it isn’t.

PaminaMozart · 22/10/2023 01:48

Eh? I did no such thing!

Reasonable - as in 'amicable, mutually acceptable'....... my words.

Collaborate · 22/10/2023 06:31

If someone was threatening to sue me for something they had no right to I’d think them to be pretty unreasonable. They would be doubly unreasonable if we had an agreement they didn’t want to be held to. Further increases in level of unreasonable behaviour caused by me having lost money agreeing to delay the sale due to the housing market falling, and also by the fact this person was my sister.

So yes, sister is wholly out of order yet you think OP should try and find a middle ground? If I were OP I’d probably be wondering whether it’s worth throwing money at her sister simply to maintain a relationship with someone who would treat me like that.

MargotBamborough · 22/10/2023 08:43

PaminaMozart · 21/10/2023 22:51

Yes indeed, it does.

However, there are situations where the exact letter of the law might be detrimental to one or both parties.

Here we have 2 sisters, about to fall out irrevocably, unless they sit down and try to come to an amicable, mutually acceptable agreement.

So I'd suggest looking at the law and then try to figure out something that seems reasonable.

Reasonable is such a good concept. I'd go with reasonable over 'the law'.

Show quote history

They're about to fall out because the OP's sister wants to go back on their written agreement.

Think of it like this.

OP and Sis: Let's buy a house and live in it together! We own it equally.

Four years later:

OP: My circumstances have changed. I plan to live with my boyfriend. Can we sell the house and split our money?

Sis: No. I wouldn't be able to afford to buy a house with just my share of the proceeds and living here is cheaper for me than renting.

OP: OK, well I can't afford to pay for my half of the mortgage repayments as well as renting somewhere else. I won't charge you rent on my half of the house but you need to cover the mortgage on your own. Can you do that?

Sis: Yes. It'll be tight but I'll manage.

OP: You could get a lodger to make it more affordable for you.

Sis: No, I don't want to.

OP: OK well whatever you think is best.

Two years later, house is sold, solicitor distributes proceeds of sale equally in accordance with the sisters' equal legal ownership of the property.

Sis: Now I'm going to sue you for two years of mortgage repayments even though we had a written agreement that I would cover these on my own.

Where's the middle ground here?

The OP bungs her sister some more money even though her sister is legally in the wrong and is also the reason why the OP's money has been tied up in a property she didn't live in for two years?

Fawbs89 · 22/10/2023 08:54

I work in a solicitors and this is correct. If she issues a claim ots likely you will be liable for the sum she wants. You can't have 50% of the sale when you've not paid 50% of the mortgage. Totally unreasonable.

That being said the sale has gone through whi h she agreed to so she cant retrospectively kick up a fuss imo.

MargotBamborough · 22/10/2023 08:57

Fawbs89 · 22/10/2023 08:54

I work in a solicitors and this is correct. If she issues a claim ots likely you will be liable for the sum she wants. You can't have 50% of the sale when you've not paid 50% of the mortgage. Totally unreasonable.

That being said the sale has gone through whi h she agreed to so she cant retrospectively kick up a fuss imo.

Can you just clarify whether you mean you are a solicitor, or you just "work in a solicitors", which is not the same thing at all?

Because implying that you are a solicitor when you are not one is against the law.

SurprisedWithAHorse · 22/10/2023 09:07

Fawbs89 · 22/10/2023 08:54

I work in a solicitors and this is correct. If she issues a claim ots likely you will be liable for the sum she wants. You can't have 50% of the sale when you've not paid 50% of the mortgage. Totally unreasonable.

That being said the sale has gone through whi h she agreed to so she cant retrospectively kick up a fuss imo.

What's your job title?

Shroedy · 22/10/2023 09:09

Fawbs89 · 22/10/2023 08:54

I work in a solicitors and this is correct. If she issues a claim ots likely you will be liable for the sum she wants. You can't have 50% of the sale when you've not paid 50% of the mortgage. Totally unreasonable.

That being said the sale has gone through whi h she agreed to so she cant retrospectively kick up a fuss imo.

Yes you can.

You are not a solicitor, clearly. You don't become one by osmosis through working in a law firm.

prh47bridge · 22/10/2023 09:30

Fawbs89 · 22/10/2023 08:54

I work in a solicitors and this is correct. If she issues a claim ots likely you will be liable for the sum she wants. You can't have 50% of the sale when you've not paid 50% of the mortgage. Totally unreasonable.

That being said the sale has gone through whi h she agreed to so she cant retrospectively kick up a fuss imo.

Even if you do work in a solicitors as you claim, you clearly don't know the law. As several actual solicitors have said on this thread, OP is entitled to 50% of the proceeds of sale. There is no legal, or indeed moral, basis for OP's sister to claim the mortgage payments. OP will not be liable for the sum her sister wants.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page