Tenants in common, how to tell?
Discussion
I have got the land registry entry for my father's property (sorting out his estate). Does anyone know what it would say if the ownership were tenants in common as I think it should be, reflecting the (agreed) unequal share of ownership between him and his surviving partner?
It just says PROPRIETOR: Bert's Dad and Bert's Dad's Partner of address. I assume this is joint tenants, but looking for someone who knows these things!
Cheers
Bert
It just says PROPRIETOR: Bert's Dad and Bert's Dad's Partner of address. I assume this is joint tenants, but looking for someone who knows these things!
Cheers
Bert
The proprietor bit says the same on both Tenants in Common and Joint Tenants agreements.
The way to tell is if the Title Register states the below, then it is owned by Tenants in Common.
RESTRICTION: No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the court.
If not, then it is owned by Joint Tenants.
The way to tell is if the Title Register states the below, then it is owned by Tenants in Common.
RESTRICTION: No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the court.
If not, then it is owned by Joint Tenants.
BertBert said:
And it does indeed say that! So that's a good start thanks. Next thing is where would the proportion of ownership be specified? I presume elsewhere?
Cheers
Bert
That is a little more tricky. As BV has stated above me, you may wish to consult a solicitor on that.Cheers
Bert
Sometimes a declaration of trust is put together to accompany the title plan, sometimes not.
Breadvan72 said:
The registry is not necessarily conclusive as to what the parties intended.
You know what I think about taking advice about one of the most valuable things in the world from a car forum.
Where else would you look BV if not the Land Registry? All help gratefully received. FAOD I do have paid help on the matter which I am unimpressed with so I am looking for more info so I can ask better questions.You know what I think about taking advice about one of the most valuable things in the world from a car forum.
ETA: the intentions of the two parties are well known, understood by the families concerned and not in dispute (other than by the solicitor!). But the intentions don't seem to have been documented well enough. So it would just be helpful to find it documented. The Land registry is the last place I can think of to look.
Cheers
Bert
Edited by BertBert on Tuesday 3rd November 11:30
Breadvan72 said:
The registry is not necessarily conclusive as to what the parties intended.
You know what I think about taking advice about one of the most valuable things in the world from a car forum.
Now now, Bert asked a simple question and got a simple answer.You know what I think about taking advice about one of the most valuable things in the world from a car forum.
The registry stating different things to what the owners originally intended is valid, but in this case may be a moot point, the property in question is registered as TiC - regardless of what the owners originally intended.
Indeed, if Bert needs any further information then he should contact a solicitor.
roadsmash said:
Breadvan72 said:
The registry is not necessarily conclusive as to what the parties intended.
You know what I think about taking advice about one of the most valuable things in the world from a car forum.
Now now, Bert asked a simple question and got a simple answer.You know what I think about taking advice about one of the most valuable things in the world from a car forum.
The registry stating different things to what the owners originally intended is valid, but in this case may be a moot point, the property in question is registered as TiC - regardless of what the owners originally intended.
Indeed, if Bert needs any further information then he should contact a solicitor.
BertBert said:
roadsmash said:
Indeed, if Bert needs any further information then he should contact a solicitor.
Which I have indeed done. They are adamant that the share is equal. So I am looking for more knowledge around the subject to be able to have a better discussion with them.Cheers
Bert
In an ideal would, when people register a property as TiC, they should write a Will outlining the shares, and also ideally a declaration of trust, especially if unmarried.
Sadly, not many people get round to doing either in the early years of property ownership/life. Then by the time they do write one up, all the finer details relating to the property’s ownership has been forgotten about, and is therefore not included.
Breadvan72 said:
You post makes good my point. The OP would be very unwise to follow your foolish and ignorant advice.
I give up with this place.You can’t just call everyone foolish and ignorant for helping someone out on a forum.
Nothing I have given Bert is foolish nor is it ignorant. I’ve given him straight facts, according to the land registry the property is owned by TiC.
Good luck Bert, I can’t be bothered.
roadsmash said:
Breadvan72 said:
You post makes good my point. The OP would be very unwise to follow your foolish and ignorant advice.
I give up with this place.You can’t just call everyone foolish and ignorant for helping someone out on a forum.
Nothing I have given Bert is foolish nor is it ignorant. I’ve given him straight facts, according to the land registry the property is owned by TiC.
Good luck Bert, I can’t be bothered.
roadsmash said:
Is there a Will at play?
In an ideal would, when people register a property as TiC, they should write a Will outlining the shares, and also ideally a declaration of trust, especially if unmarried.
Sadly, not many people get round to doing either in the early years of property ownership/life. Then by the time they do write one up, all the finer details relating to the property’s ownership has been forgotten about, and is therefore not included.
Bert's question appears to be directed at finding out whether the property forms part of the estate, or whether it transfers by right if survivorship, and so falls outside the estate. You undoubtedly mean well, but you are not doing well.In an ideal would, when people register a property as TiC, they should write a Will outlining the shares, and also ideally a declaration of trust, especially if unmarried.
Sadly, not many people get round to doing either in the early years of property ownership/life. Then by the time they do write one up, all the finer details relating to the property’s ownership has been forgotten about, and is therefore not included.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 3rd November 12:41
Sorry to divert the thread further, but for Bert’s sake, I want to point out that you’re being overly pedantic and condescending.
The majority of the time, the land registry’s information is correct. In some circumstances, you’re right, it may be inaccurate or worse, may not match the original intention of the buyer. But for the purpose of answering Bert’s question, what I provided was neither foolish or ignorant.
Regarding your condescending second comment, as you know the RoS only applies to properties owned as joint tenants and only comes into effect when one of the owners passes away. If it is under TiC however, then it forms part of the estate. From a high-level point of view and according to the land registry, the property is owned via TiC and therefore it’s indicated that it forms part of his father’s estate.
Is this guaranteed correct information? No, of course not, it is the LR after all. But as Bert has already pointed out, he has already instructed a solicitor but feels he needs to do some of his own homework and as such, was just asking the PH masses what will be displayed on the Title Register if the property is owned as TiC.
I answered the question he asked, and told him to consult a lawyer for anything further.
Yes you’re a barrister, no I am not, but I have experience in this field.
Please don’t patronise me.
The majority of the time, the land registry’s information is correct. In some circumstances, you’re right, it may be inaccurate or worse, may not match the original intention of the buyer. But for the purpose of answering Bert’s question, what I provided was neither foolish or ignorant.
Regarding your condescending second comment, as you know the RoS only applies to properties owned as joint tenants and only comes into effect when one of the owners passes away. If it is under TiC however, then it forms part of the estate. From a high-level point of view and according to the land registry, the property is owned via TiC and therefore it’s indicated that it forms part of his father’s estate.
Is this guaranteed correct information? No, of course not, it is the LR after all. But as Bert has already pointed out, he has already instructed a solicitor but feels he needs to do some of his own homework and as such, was just asking the PH masses what will be displayed on the Title Register if the property is owned as TiC.
I answered the question he asked, and told him to consult a lawyer for anything further.
Yes you’re a barrister, no I am not, but I have experience in this field.
Please don’t patronise me.
I am not patronising you. I am trying to impress on you the unwisdom of giving legal advice which, if a lawyer gave it, might be actionably negligent. A bit of experience does not trump a careful understanding of a subject. The degrees handed out by the University of Life are not always as valuable as their holders believe them to be.
You may not think that attention to detail matters in the law of property, but it does. Your big picture, broad brush approach doesn't work.
You have confidently given an answer that is wrong as a statement of general principle, and which or might not be misleading on the specific facts of the OP's specific case . You object to being told this. Being confident that you are right doesn't make you right.
You may not think that attention to detail matters in the law of property, but it does. Your big picture, broad brush approach doesn't work.
You have confidently given an answer that is wrong as a statement of general principle, and which or might not be misleading on the specific facts of the OP's specific case . You object to being told this. Being confident that you are right doesn't make you right.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 3rd November 13:53
doesthiswork said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am not patronising you...The degrees handed out by the University of Life are not always as valuable as their holders believe them to be.
Nope, not patronising at all.There is a natural and laudable tendency for people to offer help based on some experiences, but there is a risk that the help offered may prove unhelpful. In the present instance, simply assuming that the OP's question can be answered by looking at what the land registry has recorded is uncautious. The land registry may or many not have recorded the position correctly.
If it is not clear on what basis property was owned by two or more people, then anyone investigating the issue has to do the best they can by looking for evidence of what the parties intended. In most situations, joint tenancy is the default position. If there has been some express declaration that tenancy in common is what was intended, that would usually resolve the issue. Absent such evidence, you look at the totality of the information available and form a view. The issue is important, because it bears on whether property forms part of an estate after death.
BertBert said:
Well we've gone a bit strange here. I'm still wondering where an unequal share might be documented. If there was a trust deed for example where does that get "lodged", I presume it's public domain? Any other ways of documenting the proportions?
Cheers
Bert
Trust instruments are not public documents as a matter of routine. There is not a particular format for documents as to property interests. Each case depends on the accumulation of evidence unique to that case.Cheers
Bert
Thanks Roadsmash and BV. In fact I just spoke to the solicitor who is dealing with this and it was useful with the information I gleaned from this thread to ask pertinent questions. It was hard going, but we now have a common understanding of the situation and a route forward. PH triumphs again 
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff