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.

how much would your half of the mortgage payments be to cover the 24 months that she is seeking?

It could be cheaper for you to pay your half of the 24 months mortgage payments from the sale of the flat money than be taken to court and pay solicitors fees.

If the mortgage was for example £500 per month so your share would have been £250 x 24 = £6000

You could of course counter sue for rent - if the going rate for rent at that time was £800, you could sue your ds for £7200 for unpaid rent on the property

The OP has not enjoyed any of the benefit of owning that property for the last two years. She has only had downsides, namely not being able to get her money out, get another mortgage or buy another property with her partner.

The OP's sister has enjoyed all of the benefit of owning that property for the last two years. She has been enabled, at the OP's cost, to live in a two bedroom property which she would otherwise have been unable to afford. Of course she should have been paying all the costs during that time. She was the only person benefiting from it. You think the OP should have been subsidising her even more than she already did? Why?

If they had sold the flat two years ago, when the OP wanted to, they wouldn't be in this position. In fact, it's entirely possible that the flat is worth less now than it would have been two years ago, given the current state of the housing market and increased borrowing costs, in which case her sister refusing to sell has properly fucked the OP over.

If they had both moved out of the flat two years ago and rented it out, the rental income would most likely have exceeded the cost of the mortgage, meaning that the OP would have had a little extra money coming in every month, and the sister could have put her rental income towards renting a more modest property on her own.

If the sister had agreed to get a lodger, as the OP suggested, someone else would have been paying rent for that room.

The sister is a CF.

Legally, I think you're in the right.

Whether you're prepared to lose the relationship with your sister to prove it and keep your cash, only you can answer.

But the OP has also not been receiving rent payments from her sister for the half of the flat that she owns. That would probably near enough cancel out the mortgage payments the sister thinks she owes.

OP let your sister see a solicitor to see if she has a case. Given the lack of rental payments to you, and the written agreement you have with your sister for you not to pay, the solicitor will probably advise her she doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

This is what I’d say too.

well that's why if you can't figure it out between you you can go to court. The problem seems to have been both people making slightly different assumptions when one the sister moved out.

A mortgage with both your names on tied to a property with both your names on is a situation they both understood.

As the sister was moving out it seemed both agreed that buying out her share of the property would be appropriate (but not affordable) lack of clear communication as to what they were agreeing to do instead seems to be the problem.

Given that the OP says her sister couldn't afford to rent an equivalent property, I imagine half the market rent would actually exceed the OP's half of the mortgage repayments.

If the sister wants to go down that road she might find herself owing the OP money.

Yes, the fairest thing was it should have been frozen, whether it fell or rose, OP should have been entitled half of what it was 2 years ago, because the only thing stopping her from selling was the fact that her sister wanted to stay on the property ladder to find something suitable for herself, otherwise they would have sold. It was her sisters risk to take if it fell in that time, as that was the choice she made

But it's neither here nor there as their agreement wasn't nailed down and they never had the property valued, so it doesn't mean much.

I feel for the sister a little as OP is the one that basically decided what was happening for both of them, but I think it's crazy to demand money and threaten your family with court, but not bother to nail down an agreement in the first place?

In fact, @Confused20232023, I think that is what I would say to your sister.

"OK DSis, you want to sue me for my half of the mortgage repayments? You do that. Meanwhile I am going to speak to three letting agents to find out how much the property could have been rented out for, take the average figure to determine the market rental value, and sue you for the rent you didn't pay me for two years. But be warned, it will probably be more than the amount I "owe" you. Alternatively you could just drop this and we both get on with our lives."

Is it worth losing your relationship for a few thousand pounds? Only you can decide that.

That doesn't seem to bother the sister who is threatening to sue the OP.

Arguably, she should have been paying you rent for living in your half of the flat for 2 years; so I don't think she'll have a case - but check with a solicitor.

She is within her rights to ask for th amount she covered for 2 years but not the interest. This is a perfect example of don't mix family and money.

The OP is equally entitled to ask for rent for someone living in her property for 2 years.

You broke the arrangement and left her to pay everything - and then took half the profit !!
Cough up, that's not right.

The fairest way I think is to consider what the flat was worth when you moved out and stopped paying the mortgage and you would get 1/2 the equity that was + what that equity would have accrued in a savings account

The difference in value in the intervening 2 years is all your sisters
Eg
Flat cost £200,000
deposit £20,000. Mortgage 180,000

4 years later you moved out

flat valuation £250,000
mortgage £175,000

so equity is 75,000
your 1/2 should be £37500 + interest at what was the going rate at the time for the 2 years

If the flat when it was sold went up to £285000 and the mortgage went down to £170,000 with just your sister paying then the equity she would get would be £115,000 less your payment of £37500 + interest you would have accrued.

Estate agents fees should also have been split to reflect your half of the fees when you wanted to sell and your sister would cover the difference

Solicitors fees and any other fees 50/50

Whilst she did agree to pay the mortgage and bills whilst she was living there. I think that statement is quite open to coming after you for these payments when she wasn’t living there

I take it no decent solicitor was involved in drawing up this Contract because they would have seen the issues and put in extra clauses to cover all possibilities

If your sister is only coming after you for mortgage payments then I would pay as it could end up making you worse off if you try to fight it.

Yes you can.
The other person has had full occupancy
Amounts to "occupational rent"

Let her sue you
Wont be worth the £££ spent

Unless the flat is 999,000 and equity is huge but evdn then see above re occupational rent

She could have pushed for the property to be sold. Her name was on the mortgage. Legally OP might be within her right to pocket the money but morally I don't think so.

Remarkable number of people here who are commenting from a moral rather than legal standpoint.

If OP and sister had been in a romantic relationship together I suspect everyone would know that (as both were 50:50 beneficial owners) both would be entitled to 50% of the proceeds of sale net of sales costs.

And if OP's sister had posted she would have been encouraged to buy out OP as soon as possible.

this is interesting:

What happens to the mortgage?
In most cases, the remaining party will be paying the full mortgage as they are still living in the home. They can make a claim against the excluded party for their share of the mortgage payments. In this instance, the occupational rent and mortgage reimbursement claims more-or-less cancel one another out.

However, Case law suggests that if the excluded party left voluntarily and stopped making mortgage payments, they would not win an occupational rent award.

THANK YOU from a fellow lawyer for actually setting out on the legal board what the legal position is. Honestly, the amount of confidently express total rubbish on here is a bit mind boggling...

If OP and sister had been in a romantic relationship together I suspect everyone would know that (as both were 50:50 beneficial owners) both would be entitled to 50% of the proceeds of sale net of sales costs.

But would a couple who have split up let the other one live there for 2 years under what basically amounts to a handshake agreement? It's the 2 years in this case that has caused the problem, I would imagine most couples who split would insist on being bought out or force the sale and wouldn't have the same problem that OP has.

@sandyhappypeople it seems to happen quite often on here while one or the other is sorting themselves out. And the forcing of the sale happens when one or the other is in a new relationship/wants to buy into a different property.

This sounds really familiar. I think your DSIS was on here a few days ago. It's really odd that the conveyancing solicitors on both sides didn't notice the issue with the title deeds and mortgage, and went through with the sale when you and your DSIS were at odds on who owned and who owed what.
So what did the solicitor advise when you went in to sign the paperwork for selling the house?