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.
