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:
CorylusAgain · 18/10/2023 14:30

Velvian · 18/10/2023 14:25

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.

Edited

But it wasn't "mutually beneficial".
The OP says 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

The OP got to move out with her boyfriend without any financial cost. The sister was forced to agree to sell and paid the 100% of the mortgage whilst the sale was being dealt with. And then receives exactly the same amount of equity as the OP. Where is the sister benefitting?

Original poster
Confused20232023 · 18/10/2023 14:31

Thanks everyone for your comments.

Yes, she dragged her feet because she didn't want to sell, even though we agreed that we would. I asked her to take in a lodger to help pay the mortgage but she refused, and I didn't push it because I felt like it was her choice (I wasn't going to take any of the rent that she would have received, it was more to help her pay the mortgage).

OP posts:
ActDottie · 18/10/2023 14:31

FiveGoMadInDorset · 18/10/2023 13:30

Will you be expecting equal amount of money from the sale?

This. I think given your sister has been paying the mortgage for a good fees years she should have more capital from the sale.

Querty123456 · 18/10/2023 14:34

She defo should have a bigger payout!

ReadingSoManyThreads · 18/10/2023 14:34

Collaborate · 18/10/2023 13:52

There is some terrible advice given here.

Sister occupied the property on her own rather than selling it. In return she agreed to pay the mortgage on her own, She cannot ask you to pay after the event. A PP mentioned occupation rent - that is correct.

Stand your ground. the law is on your side (I'm a solicitor and deal with these cases).

I don't see how occupational rent can be claimed here, it's not like the sister threw her out and wouldn't let her live there anymore. The OP was not excluded from her property, she chose to move out. There are plenty of these cases and occupational rent has never been due.

CorylusAgain · 18/10/2023 14:34

Confused20232023 · 18/10/2023 14:31

Thanks everyone for your comments.

Yes, she dragged her feet because she didn't want to sell, even though we agreed that we would. I asked her to take in a lodger to help pay the mortgage but she refused, and I didn't push it because I felt like it was her choice (I wasn't going to take any of the rent that she would have received, it was more to help her pay the mortgage).

For what its worth I don't think you owe your sister mortgage payments.
But given that you paid nothing for 2 years why do you feel entitled to the full 50% of equity?

anon2022anon · 18/10/2023 14:35

I think a lot of people here would be in for a shock if they got divorced.

stillplentyofjunkinthetrunk · 18/10/2023 14:36

6 years of asset appreciation, only 4 years of which you contributed toward. Yes accepting half of the profit without allowing for that is totally unreasonable

You're reasonably entitled to half of the collateral accrued at the point you moved out, legally I think the only way your sister can do it though is half the mortgage payments for the last 2 years.

Negotiating out of court would likely be preferrable but I suspect she tried to raise the subject without success.

FairyMaclary · 18/10/2023 14:36

How much was the property worth when you left and what was the mortgage balance?

Any increase in value and any mortgage paid off since you left should be hers.

For example you left Jan 2021.

In Jan 21 the Property was worth £120k mortgage £80k = 20k each less selling costs.

2023 Sold for £130 the mortgage was £77 - that extra equity (13k) is hers as you would have sold and paid moving costs in the Jan of 21 (in my example) , she has paid for the property and associated costs since. In this instance the equity is 53k /2 = 26.5 each but you should only take 20 less your share of sale costs .

you could ask for interest costs for the time but it’s unlikely to be a vast amount but it’s logical.

This is not the legal stance but it’s what I would suggest if I was in your situation and I valued the relationship with my sister.

Whataretheodds · 18/10/2023 14:37

Peoplemakemedespair · 18/10/2023 13:50

That’s not how the law works at all though. They are both in the mortgage, they are both legally responsible for paying the mortgage, even if the loan was based on one’s persons earnings or if one party moves out. The ops contract was with the mortgage provider, not her sister. She doesn’t get to let her sister down, move out, and then not only not pay her portion of the loan, but expect her sister to pay HER for her vacating the property.

Show quote history

Surely that's exactly how it works legally?

Velvian · 18/10/2023 14:37

@CorylusAgain , sister benefited by not having to pay market rate rent, which was the reason she gave OP for not selling the property at the time.

MCOut · 18/10/2023 14:38

Velvian · 18/10/2023 14:25

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.

Edited

I imagine that’s why she’s suing her for the mortgage payments, not the proceeds.

I am not seeing how this was mutually beneficial. This was selfishness on steroids. Her sister had no choice, but to fall in line with a decision that saw her costs double or waste money on rent. I do think it’s shameless that it came to this to be honest, surely OP should’ve paid her back without prompting.

EasterFlower · 18/10/2023 14:38

ChateauMargaux · 18/10/2023 14:07

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.

Well if the proceeds from the sale which were passed to OP was supposedly a mistake, why doesn't the sister sue the solicitor who made the mistake then? Perhaps because it wasn't a mistake and OP was entitled to this money.

People saying about this ruining OP's relationship with her sister. It's already ruined, that happened the day the sister decided to sue OP. OP giving in and paying the sister what she wants isn't going to fix the family rift the sister has created between them.

Whataretheodds · 18/10/2023 14:39

MCOut · 18/10/2023 14:20

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.

But from OP's updates the sister prevented OP from either selling the flat or renting out her half (to a lodger).

caringcarer · 18/10/2023 14:39

Comefromaway · 18/10/2023 13:33

There is a thread from the point of view of the sister except that says 16 years, not 6

I was thinking exactly the same.

Blondeshavemorefun · 18/10/2023 14:40

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

This

You should have paid your half of mortgage till house was sold

Frasers · 18/10/2023 14:40

I’d have expected her to take the equity for the two years she was living there and paying the mortgage, I assume that’s the core of the issue, you took 50 percent, inc the growth in equity over 2 years where she paid the mortgage.

Blondeshavemorefun · 18/10/2023 14:41

Comefromaway · 18/10/2023 13:46

Both sisters were liable for the mortgage payments until it sold. It didn't matter whether one of them chose not to live there, that doesn't make the other sister liable for rent.

And this

It is still both your property

caringcarer · 18/10/2023 14:42

The flat should have been sold when you moved out. You must have known there would be issues later.

Original poster
Confused20232023 · 18/10/2023 14:44

caringcarer · 18/10/2023 14:42

The flat should have been sold when you moved out. You must have known there would be issues later.

Yes, I do regret not pushing harder to sell the flat when I moved out, or at least rent out my room so it would cover my half of the mortgage, but my sister and I had a good relationship at the time and she asked me to let her stay and also didn't want to rent out the room, so I didn't.

OP posts:
BarnacleBeasley · 18/10/2023 14:45

I'd be interested to know what the parents think, if they are still around? They contributed to the deposit, presumably so that both sisters would have a secure and affordable place to live.

adriftabroad · 18/10/2023 14:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

caerdydd12 · 18/10/2023 14:48

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

This is legal, not AIBU so "you sound fucking nuts" is neither use nor ornament. The OP owes nothing.

clpsmum · 18/10/2023 14:48

Yes she has a case you are still liable

CorylusAgain · 18/10/2023 14:48

Velvian · 18/10/2023 14:37

@CorylusAgain , sister benefited by not having to pay market rate rent, which was the reason she gave OP for not selling the property at the time.

Edited

That's not a "benefit". Perhaps, a 'less bad' situation for those 2 years, but it still cost the sister double her expected outgoings for that period.

Presumably they decided to buy together so that neither would have to pay market rent. The OP chose to opt out of that agreement ultimately leaving her sister in the position she herself was fortunate to avoid by moving in with her boyfriend.