The Lemon Fool

Lootman wrote:BUT it seems entirely reasonable that Mel's ex should assert that a half share is worth less than half a full share.

At the risk of incurring Mel's wrath for continuing this discussion this argument simply doesn't stack up. When people co-own property they do so under what's called a `trust for sale'. The word `sale' is important. It means that there is a presumption that the parties want to sell it.

This presumption is upheld by the courts, and although it is possible for the courts to overrule this presumption it's rare that they do so. Consequently, if Mel's ex refused to pay her half the value of the whole she could make an application to the court under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 in the virtual certainty that in these circumstances the court would order a sale.

Such a sale would, of course, be at full market value, in which case she would receive half the full value - not the value of a half share, which is a rather different concept.

However, it's clear that Mel doesn't wish this discussion to take place on this thread, so I'll leave it there.

Clitheroekid wrote:When people co-own property they do so under what's called a `trust for sale'. The word `sale' is important. It means that there is a presumption that the parties want to sell it.

This presumption is upheld by the courts, and although it is possible for the courts to overrule this presumption it's rare that they do so. Consequently, if Mel's ex refused to pay her half the value of the whole she could make an application to the court under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 in the virtual certainty that in these circumstances the court would order a sale.

FYI, Mel stated earlier that:

"I am not stupid enough to go to court to try to force a sale."

I'm not entirely sure why you are bothering. Any SDLT would be payable by your ex-partner, which presumably is none of your interest or concern. It is for him to establish whilst you get on with the rest of your life.

HerveLeger wrote:I'm not entirely sure why you are bothering. Any SDLT would be payable by your ex-partner, which presumably is none of your interest or concern. It is for him to establish whilst you get on with the rest of your life.

Well, quite - that's entirely my view, though not his. I'd just like to know, if he does try to use this as a negotiating chip, what I might be arguing over!

Mel

I'm not sure why you are bothered, it's his liability?

HerveLeger wrote:I'm not sure why you are bothered, it's his liability?

Because he has asked me to pay half of it - he seems to think I should share the liability.

Funnily enough though, despite his email two days ago saying "I am talking to a solicitor about whether stamp duty is payable", I chased him today to ask if he had heard from his solicitor and he now tells me he doesn't have one and can't instruct one until we have agreed a value.

This is why I need everything in writing, he changes his mind about stuff all the time. He is now saying he might prefer to sell so he doesn't have to have such a big mortgage, when his immediate reaction when we agreed to split up was "I want to stay in the house so I'll buy you out", exact words, I never asked him to buy me out, I couldn't care less where he lives. This is the first mention of him moving out. Makes it hard to know where I stand and what I need to do next.

Mel