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.

You have it in writing that the agreement was she would pay the mortgage, so I can't see that she can change her mind now.

Do you honestly not see how your change in circumstances massively affected your dsis? Your good fortune in having a second person to share living costs with effectively shafted your sister.
It was going to happen at some point, but you weren't doing your sister any favour were you? Just a compromise on a situation in which she couldn't win.

She paid the full cost of the interest on the mortgage and the capital repayments for two years. The capital repayments reduced the loan and therefore increased the proceeds that were shared with you. This is a mistake, they should have been taken into account when the proceeds were shared.

She could have insisted you carry on sharing all fixed costs until the house was sold.. she didn't. Calculate the capital element of the payment and pay it back to her. It is not yours to begin with, it doesn't matter that money is tight for you and your partner, it is not up to your sister to fund your family.

I imagine your sister wasn’t paying you rent for living in the property you jointly owned? Check the market value for rent, I it usually similar to the mortgage repayment.
Not sure why PP don’t agree with you personally.
Your sister could have moved out and you could both have received rent from a tenant, this would have allowed her to rent somewhere cheaper. Or she could have agreed to sell. Or she could have taken in a lodger to help pay the mortgage.

Another option could be that you work out what the flat was worth when you moved out and take your share of the theoretical proceeds less that outstanding loan at that point.... not so easy to work that out. It is quite likely that the flat gained in value during those two years, you should loose out on that increase if you are not prepared to share in the capital repayments during that time.

No, you don’t owe the mortgage payments.

Your sister could have taken in a renter. If she chose not to, and you have emails/whatever showing she agreed to cover costs, that’s on her.

Did she rent your room to someone else when you moved out?

I also remember seeing the reverse of this quite recently. If this is real, you need legal advice.

From a moral perspective, though, if you bought a house with your sister you did so knowing that one day you might meet someone and want to live with them. Undertaking a huge financial commitment with somebody then unilaterally jumping ship, refusing to pay and expecting them to make a financial sacrifice which benefits you is not doing someone a favour. I agree with previous posters the proceeds should not have been split equally.

Exactly - and now she should fund your baby plans out of the profit you’ve screwed her over for? Jesus. Of course you should pay her what she wants. What a sister you are.

But why should she be entitled to the full 50% of the equity when for 1/3 of lifetime of the ownership she paid nothing?

Really shafted the sister

Whilst I agree with other posters that the sister has a right to feel put out because life/property ownership didn't turn out as she planned it, I also agree with this poster that OP has a right to feel put out at her sister suing her now.

No doubt OP wanted to sell the house quickly 2yrs ago when she moved in with her boyfriend. Maybe not having the equity to put into a property with him meant they had to rent? Or left her more broke with higher mortgage payments than she otherwise would have had? Or possibly having to pay capital gains tax now because the property she lived in with her sister is now a second property OP isn't living in? At the end of the day if she co-owned a flat for 2yrs she had every right to want that flat rented out during tha time. That's what most people would do with a property they owned but weren't living in. If she forgoes rent in favour of letting her sister continue to live there, it's fair enough to consider it quid pro quo that OP didn't pay the mortgage for 2yrs IMO. Market rent would have likely been more than the mortgage payment, so OP has lost out there. The sister has gained by only having to pay OP's share of the mortgage and not having to pay half of whatever market rent would have been.

I understand that the sister may feel annoyed at OP wanting to sell after 4yrs, but I'm assuming they're relatively young and of a dating mindset when they purchased the property (as opposed to eg about 60, ranting about being done with men, and buying a retirement property together). It could have reasonably been forseen by both parties that one or the other of them would at some point want to move in with someone else. And that it might happen at an inconvenient time for the other party.

It's unreasonable for the sister to have expected to live in the property with OP forever. Or to live there until she decided she wanted to sell. Or, as I suspect has happened, to drag her heels on the sale because she didn't actually want it sold (and was living there so what did she have to lose?).

The sister may feel shafted, but at the end of the day she's lived rent free for 2yrs and should be grateful for that. OP could have done more to force the sale of the house 2yrs ago, I expect, but didn't because it was her sister living there. If the sister had wanted it to be more official she should have paid rent for 2yrs, allowing OP the option of affording to pay her half of the mortgage for those 2yrs.

OP if your sister wants 2yrs of half the mortgage payments from you, I'd countersue for 2yrs of half market rental value from her. That's fair. Or you can both stick to the original agreement where you co owned the property and were entitled to 50% of the equity each upon sale, but your sister paid the mortgage alone for 2yrs because she lived there alone. She's the one trying to change the agreement now, personally I think she's daft and being grabby.

She has a good point. If she paid the mortgage for several years without you then she would be entitled to a higher percentage of the sale proceeds than you. I believe she has a case to recover that extra part of the sale proceeds from you. It was fine to agree you wouldn’t pay the mortgage but not fine to assume you would then still own half an asset that someone else has been paying for! I’d agree a sum with her and avoid yourself a lot of legal costs, stress, and family angst!

How much capital gains tax did you have to pay?

I’ve actually just had a Google. Obviously it’s better to get legal advice, but it doesn’t look like she would owe you rent because she didn't prevented you from living in the property, you chose not to.

Because, assuming, they own the property either jointly or as tenants in common with a 50/50 split then she is indeed entitled to 50% of the equity. Not paying the mortgage doesn't change that. They are/were both jointly and severally liable for the mortgage, they would not have had a liability of 50% mortgage payments each.

You can't expect to get equal equity when you haven't contributed towards the equity. That would be mad. Also greedy and unreasonable. It is a pity you still can't see that despite so many posters explaining why.

I think you can legally steal your sister's equity as you joint owners.

Technically you should have paid 50% of the mortgage for the past two years, however, as she was the only one living there at her request then say to her that you will pay her your 50% of the mortgage and in exchange you will be charging her rent on your 50% of the property. I bet the mortgage was lower than the rent she should have paid.

Yeah this.

Yes, this is what it appears.

Legally OP is safe. Not sure how safe family relationships will be though.

You should have continued to pay your share of the mortgage after you moved out. Your name was still on the deeds as well as her's. But your expecting an equal share from the sale?

I don't think OP has done anything wrong. The sister may not legally have had to pay rent to the OP, but OP does not legally have to accept anything less than 50% of the proceeds.

They came to a mutually beneficial solution. I really don't see how PPs are getting the idea that OP shafted her sister.

Quite a few different details to that post so I don't think this is a troll.

Not legally