The Lemon Fool

A few years ago I was told by a solicitor something along the lines of it was easier (legally administratively) to sell a house that had two owners rather than just one. He said something about if there was only one owner then the selling solicitor had to become a legal owner temporarily to effect the sale.

Can anyone cast some definitive light on this? (It is entirely possible that I'm completely mis-remembering or that I'm mixing it up with something else!)

TIA
MayLix

The basic statement is completely untrue. It's always easier to act for one person rather than two if only because the solicitor has to deal with just one person - it's amazing how often a husband and wife give completely contradictory instructions! - and documents require just one signature.

I suspect the situation you're describing is where one of two tenants-in-common dies. In that case an additional trustee has to be appointed to give a valid receipt for the sale price, and the solicitor is often appointed as the co-trustee.

Clitheroekid wrote:The basic statement is completely untrue. It's always easier to act for one person rather than two if only because the solicitor has to deal with just one person - it's amazing how often a husband and wife give completely contradictory instructions! - and documents require just one signature.

I suspect the situation you're describing is where one of two tenants-in-common dies. In that case an additional trustee has to be appointed to give a valid receipt for the sale price, and the solicitor is often appointed as the co-trustee.

Yes that makes sense, as that was the situation we were dealing with at the time: 2 tenants in common, and 1 dying. Thanks for the clarification and explanation. Have a virtual pint!

Maylix