Property Ownership
Discussion
Quick question legal guys. A vehicle belongs to the person that paid for it not the person on the V5. Does that also hold true for property deeds. IE the person on the deeds is not necessarily the owner ?
Its a long story but the above is the crux of it. And anyone know lawyers competent in that field?
Its a long story but the above is the crux of it. And anyone know lawyers competent in that field?
3200gt said:
Quick question legal guys. A vehicle belongs to the person that paid for it not the person on the V5. Does that also hold true for property deeds. IE the person on the deeds is not necessarily the owner ?
Its a long story but the above is the crux of it. And anyone know lawyers competent in that field?
Based on my limited and very much non-professional knowledge of property law, I would say that any person not on the deeds who was hoping to enforce a claim of ownership for whatever reason would have a very small snowball in hell's chance of getting anywhere with that.Its a long story but the above is the crux of it. And anyone know lawyers competent in that field?
There are two area's where someone who isn't on the deeds has rights but Im unsure how powerful those rights are.
There is an area called "resulting trusts" which is when a person contributed to the purchase through either deposit or mortgage payments but isn't on the deeds.
Another called "Constructive trusts" which is when there is an implied agreement where the beneficial of ownership should be shared.
Finding a solicitor who knows anything about it is near impossible through!!!!
There is an area called "resulting trusts" which is when a person contributed to the purchase through either deposit or mortgage payments but isn't on the deeds.
Another called "Constructive trusts" which is when there is an implied agreement where the beneficial of ownership should be shared.
Finding a solicitor who knows anything about it is near impossible through!!!!
Deeds prove nothing any more, My wife bought a UK house and was given the old deeds going back a few hundred years to keep as a historic document. We asked how to keep them, safe deposit etc, and our lawyer said just frame them they have no legal value. Isn't the issue who is recorded as the Owner at the land register, and if any mortgage or charge is registered.
Of course it is complicated, there was a case around 30 years ago where, I think William and Glyn bank, tried to enforce an eviction for mortgage arrears against the husband who was the sole registered Owner but the wife managed to fight the eviction. that was the start of mortgage holders wanting an undertaking from any other party who had a beneficial use in the property.
If I bought a house and wasn't the registered owner I'd want a charge registered, but having said that I loaned my son a substantial amount as the deposit on his first house and didn't do that and that worked out OK
Of course it is complicated, there was a case around 30 years ago where, I think William and Glyn bank, tried to enforce an eviction for mortgage arrears against the husband who was the sole registered Owner but the wife managed to fight the eviction. that was the start of mortgage holders wanting an undertaking from any other party who had a beneficial use in the property.
If I bought a house and wasn't the registered owner I'd want a charge registered, but having said that I loaned my son a substantial amount as the deposit on his first house and didn't do that and that worked out OK
Berw said:
Deeds prove nothing any more, My wife bought a UK house and was given the old deeds going back a few hundred years to keep as a historic document. We asked how to keep them, safe deposit etc, and our lawyer said just frame them they have no legal value. Isn't the issue who is recorded as the Owner at the land register, and if any mortgage or charge is registered.
Of course it is complicated, there was a case around 30 years ago where, I think William and Glyn bank, tried to enforce an eviction for mortgage arrears against the husband who was the sole registered Owner but the wife managed to fight the eviction. that was the start of mortgage holders wanting an undertaking from any other party who had a beneficial use in the property.
If I bought a house and wasn't the registered owner I'd want a charge registered, but having said that I loaned my son a substantial amount as the deposit on his first house and didn't do that and that worked out OK
I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect this is exactly what the OP meant by "who is on the property deeds". Certainly, so far as my reply was concerned, that's what I meant. If your name isn't on the property registry as the owner or having a charge or other interest, you'd have some major legal wrangling ahead of you if you wanted to try and stand up a claim of being the real owner.Of course it is complicated, there was a case around 30 years ago where, I think William and Glyn bank, tried to enforce an eviction for mortgage arrears against the husband who was the sole registered Owner but the wife managed to fight the eviction. that was the start of mortgage holders wanting an undertaking from any other party who had a beneficial use in the property.
If I bought a house and wasn't the registered owner I'd want a charge registered, but having said that I loaned my son a substantial amount as the deposit on his first house and didn't do that and that worked out OK
Aside from anything else, if the system didn't work this way it would be wide open to misuse by money-launderers wanting to sink their illicit gains into bricks and mortar assets, by simply getting a patsy to put their name on the paperwork for appearances sake only.
The property is mortgage and charge free. The person on the deeds has died. The person living there is not on the deeds and is not a beneficiary in the will but has records to show both resulting trusts and constructive trusts. The beneficiaries want to sell the property and reap 100% of the proceeds. The person living there has received a letter to vacate in 3 months. They are happy to do that but want "their fair share" of the proceeds so are reluctant to vacate without legal agreement what "their fair share" is.
legal definition of resulting trusts.
This is where a person contributes to the purchase price of a property without being a party to the conveyance/transfer (unless of course that money was given by way of a gift). Ordinarily, the financial contribution would need to have been made at the time of purchase, but in some cases a court will accept later contributions if they were contemplated at the time that the property was acquired.
legal definition of constructive trusts.
A constructive trust can arise where there is some sort of express or implied agreement, arrangement or understanding (also known as a “common intention”) that the beneficial ownership of the property should be shared, and there is some form of relevant conduct on the part of the non-owner to support this.
Where the constructive trust is based on an express agreement, that agreement, however imperfectly remembered and however imprecise, must generally arise prior to the acquisition of the property (although in some cases a later date will be accepted) and relate to the shared ownership of the property as opposed to an agreement about the occupation of the property. These factors must be accompanied by some kind of detrimental reliance or significant alteration on the part of the non-owning party.
Where there is no express agreement, the court may infer an agreement from the way in which the parties conducted themselves during the course of their relationship, for example, direct contributions to the purchase price initially or subsequent contributions to mortgage instalments which are genuinely referable to a shared understanding that the paying party would have an equitable interest in the property.
Other contributions can include substantial renovations to the property, or capital improvements that would not ordinarily be expected from a non-owner or someone who was simply occupying the property. Mere DIY or general housework will not be enough to establish a beneficial interest in a property.
legal definition of resulting trusts.
This is where a person contributes to the purchase price of a property without being a party to the conveyance/transfer (unless of course that money was given by way of a gift). Ordinarily, the financial contribution would need to have been made at the time of purchase, but in some cases a court will accept later contributions if they were contemplated at the time that the property was acquired.
legal definition of constructive trusts.
A constructive trust can arise where there is some sort of express or implied agreement, arrangement or understanding (also known as a “common intention”) that the beneficial ownership of the property should be shared, and there is some form of relevant conduct on the part of the non-owner to support this.
Where the constructive trust is based on an express agreement, that agreement, however imperfectly remembered and however imprecise, must generally arise prior to the acquisition of the property (although in some cases a later date will be accepted) and relate to the shared ownership of the property as opposed to an agreement about the occupation of the property. These factors must be accompanied by some kind of detrimental reliance or significant alteration on the part of the non-owning party.
Where there is no express agreement, the court may infer an agreement from the way in which the parties conducted themselves during the course of their relationship, for example, direct contributions to the purchase price initially or subsequent contributions to mortgage instalments which are genuinely referable to a shared understanding that the paying party would have an equitable interest in the property.
Other contributions can include substantial renovations to the property, or capital improvements that would not ordinarily be expected from a non-owner or someone who was simply occupying the property. Mere DIY or general housework will not be enough to establish a beneficial interest in a property.
Edited by 3200gt on Tuesday 27th August 11:25
3200gt said:
The property is mortgage and charge free. The person on the deeds has died. The person living there is not on the deeds and is not a beneficiary in the will but has records to show both resulting trusts and constructive trusts. The beneficiaries want to sell the property and reap 100% of the proceeds. The person living there has received a letter to vacate in 3 months. They are happy to do that but want "their fair share" of the proceeds so are reluctant to vacate without legal agreement what "their fair share" is.
legal definition of resulting trusts.
This is where a person contributes to the purchase price of a property without being a party to the conveyance/transfer (unless of course that money was given by way of a gift). Ordinarily, the financial contribution would need to have been made at the time of purchase, but in some cases a court will accept later contributions if they were contemplated at the time that the property was acquired.
legal definition of constructive trusts.
A constructive trust can arise where there is some sort of express or implied agreement, arrangement or understanding (also known as a “common intention”) that the beneficial ownership of the property should be shared, and there is some form of relevant conduct on the part of the non-owner to support this.
Where the constructive trust is based on an express agreement, that agreement, however imperfectly remembered and however imprecise, must generally arise prior to the acquisition of the property (although in some cases a later date will be accepted) and relate to the shared ownership of the property as opposed to an agreement about the occupation of the property. These factors must be accompanied by some kind of detrimental reliance or significant alteration on the part of the non-owning party.
Where there is no express agreement, the court may infer an agreement from the way in which the parties conducted themselves during the course of their relationship, for example, direct contributions to the purchase price initially or subsequent contributions to mortgage instalments which are genuinely referable to a shared understanding that the paying party would have an equitable interest in the property.
Other contributions can include substantial renovations to the property, or capital improvements that would not ordinarily be expected from a non-owner or someone who was simply occupying the property. Mere DIY or general housework will not be enough to establish a beneficial interest in a property.
Serious question, with a situation involving legal questions as intricate as this, why on Earth are you not taking this straight to a professional?legal definition of resulting trusts.
This is where a person contributes to the purchase price of a property without being a party to the conveyance/transfer (unless of course that money was given by way of a gift). Ordinarily, the financial contribution would need to have been made at the time of purchase, but in some cases a court will accept later contributions if they were contemplated at the time that the property was acquired.
legal definition of constructive trusts.
A constructive trust can arise where there is some sort of express or implied agreement, arrangement or understanding (also known as a “common intention”) that the beneficial ownership of the property should be shared, and there is some form of relevant conduct on the part of the non-owner to support this.
Where the constructive trust is based on an express agreement, that agreement, however imperfectly remembered and however imprecise, must generally arise prior to the acquisition of the property (although in some cases a later date will be accepted) and relate to the shared ownership of the property as opposed to an agreement about the occupation of the property. These factors must be accompanied by some kind of detrimental reliance or significant alteration on the part of the non-owning party.
Where there is no express agreement, the court may infer an agreement from the way in which the parties conducted themselves during the course of their relationship, for example, direct contributions to the purchase price initially or subsequent contributions to mortgage instalments which are genuinely referable to a shared understanding that the paying party would have an equitable interest in the property.
Other contributions can include substantial renovations to the property, or capital improvements that would not ordinarily be expected from a non-owner or someone who was simply occupying the property. Mere DIY or general housework will not be enough to establish a beneficial interest in a property.
Edited by 3200gt on Tuesday 27th August 11:25
3200gt said:
The property is mortgage and charge free. The person on the deeds has died. The person living there is not on the deeds and is not a beneficiary in the will but has records to show both resulting trusts and constructive trusts. The beneficiaries want to sell the property and reap 100% of the proceeds. The person living there has received a letter to vacate in 3 months. They are happy to do that but want "their fair share" of the proceeds so are reluctant to vacate without legal agreement what "their fair share" is.
…...
Or... there is a squatter in the property making spurious and unsubstantiated claims that they have earned some rights to a slice of the value …...
The key is what records they have and whether those records gives them any rights to a share of the proceeds, only paid legal advise will be of any help there IMHO.
markjmd said:
Serious question, with a situation involving legal questions as intricate as this, why on Earth are you not taking this straight to a professional?
I think that's exactly what he's asking for.3200gt said:
...Finding a solicitor who knows anything about it is near impossible through!!!!
3200gt said:
...anyone know lawyers competent in that field?
Thanks bodhi808. That is exactly what Im asking for. Without giving pages and pages of info, no its not a squatter, no there is no hidden agenda and no unless you have factual knowledge of the law responses are not really helpful.
What I have outlined is accurate. What a I have pasted as definitions of the law are accurate and legal but it seems I know more about the law in this area than most solicitors I have approached and knowing how solicitors like to charge I don't intend paying one that knows less than I do.
So, again does anyone know of a law firm that handles and is experienced in this field?
What I have outlined is accurate. What a I have pasted as definitions of the law are accurate and legal but it seems I know more about the law in this area than most solicitors I have approached and knowing how solicitors like to charge I don't intend paying one that knows less than I do.
So, again does anyone know of a law firm that handles and is experienced in this field?
Googling 'Land Law specialists' returned:
https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/nei...
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/property/land-dispu...
https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/nei...
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/property/land-dispu...
3200gt said:
law firm that handles and is experienced in this field?
carinaman said:
Googling 'Land Law specialists' returned:
https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/nei...
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/property/land-dispu...
I see what you did there, https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/nei...
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/property/land-dispu...
OP, if you have not found someone already, I suggest that you approach any one of the following:
Davies Arnold Cooper (London based)
Winkworth Sherwood (London based)
Gateley (Surrey based)
I can give you the names of individual senior Partners at each by PM if you want them. All three are excellent and very experienced lawyers who will be able to help you.
Good luck.
Davies Arnold Cooper (London based)
Winkworth Sherwood (London based)
Gateley (Surrey based)
I can give you the names of individual senior Partners at each by PM if you want them. All three are excellent and very experienced lawyers who will be able to help you.
Good luck.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff