Changing Percentage Split to a Tenancy in Common

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Changing Percentage Split to a Tenancy in Common

    Some years ago I purchased a house with my then partner, who happens to be a Conveyancer. We agreed that we would be tenants in common with equal shares 50/50.
    Having recently split with my partner, I remain living at the property and my partner vacated, I was concerned that things may be going on behind the scene. I applied to the Land Registry for copies of certain documents, one of which was the original Transfer.
    I was mortified to learn that when we orginally purchased the property my then partner allocated share percentages which were substantially in their favour. This was aginst our verbal agreement and the original transfer document filed with Land Regisrty is not signed by my ex-partner or myself.
    My question is, how do I go about correcting this missallocation? Is there a form that I need to request from Land Regisrty?
    I would really appreciate any guidance/advice.
    Many thanks.

    #2
    You will not be able to get the Land Registry to change the percentages as they have no power to do so - in fact they do not record how owners hold property. However, you can ask them why they registered the transfer if it was unsigned. As the transfer is unsigned you can argue that you are not bound by the provisions relating to the shares in which the property is held. The fact that your partner is a conveyancer is not unhelpful as s/he was clearly in a position to arrange things for his/her benefit. You need to speak to your partner and ask for a deed to regulate the matter - obviously you get the deed checked if s/he or his/her firm prepares it. If you get nowhere you really have no choice but to consult a solicitor.

    Comment


      #3
      There would really have to have been some document executed as a deed - either the TR1 itself signed by you as a deed, or a separate deed. If you say there was no deed or if you allege a deed is forged, then I imagine a court would determine on the facts (who paid the mortgage, declared taxable income, what reasons there might have been for an unequal split)

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
        There would really have to have been some document executed as a deed - either the TR1 itself signed by you as a deed
        The problem here is that there was a TR1 (or possibly some other form of transfer) which the OP did not get to sign. When I was working the LR would not accept a transfer to joint proprietors unless they had signed it.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

          The problem here is that there was a TR1 (or possibly some other form of transfer) which the OP did not get to sign. When I was working the LR would not accept a transfer to joint proprietors unless they had signed it.
          All the TR1s I have ever signed which involved a non-equal split were signed and executed as a deed -- with all parties signatures witnessed in usual deed style. It is not the land registry submission bit that matters at all, but my retention of that original deed (as it happens here, in the form of a TR1) that matters. The other parties (usually the minority owners) have certified copies of the deed/TR1 from the solicitor. I can't see that an unsigned TR1 itself creates an unequal split no matter what it says.

          As I see it, in this case, if that is all there is (an unsigned copy of a submission to LR - which as you say does not hold %s at all anyway) it is worth nothing at all.

          Comment


            #6
            "The land registry submission bit" matters because, whilst the LR are not interested in proportions, they need to know in the case of joint beneficial owners whether the property is held as joint tenants or tenants-in-common so that in the latter case the standard restriction is entered on the register.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
              "The land registry submission bit" matters because, whilst the LR are not interested in proportions, they need to know in the case of joint beneficial owners whether the property is held as joint tenants or tenants-in-common so that in the latter case the standard restriction is entered on the register.
              I don't dispute that nor am I suggesting that is not the case. However, it seems to be a fact that HMLR do accept under some circumstances submission of an electronic document (to THEM) as valid as a deed (for them): https://hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk/2...nic-signature/ (and for the purposes of the part of the process that is theirs to do - i.e. not register the percentage).

              So it is possible that what the OP says is the case (that HMLR have an unsigned TR1) was validly processed by them, but what OP needs is the Deed relating to that TR1. Which relates to my point that in terms of the remit HMLR do not have, the only relevant document is that original of the deed (which may be the TR1 if not some other deed).

              Not correct?

              Comment


                #8
                When a transfer is to more than one person you have to complete panel 10:

                Declaration of trust. The transferee is more than one person and

                [ ] they are to hold the property on trust for themselves as joint tenants
                [ ] they are to hold the property on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares
                [ ] they are to hold the property on trust:


                In the case of tenants-in-common in unequal shares you put an X in the third option and continue: on trust for themselves as tenants in common as to y per cent fot A and z per cent for B or otherwise as the case may be. The declaration is all that is required to establish how at the outset the beneficial interest is held and, if as tenants-in-common, in what proportions. A separate deed is not actually needed for that purpose, though it is advisable if other provisions are required.

                As to execution, a marginal note in TR1 says:

                If there is more than one transferee and panel 10 has been completed, each transferee must also execute this transfer to comply with the requirements in section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 relating to the declaration of a trust of land. Please refer to Joint property ownership and practice guide 24: private trusts of land for further guidance.

                That is clear, though when you look at the practice guide it says you can also use Form JO1. However, section 4.2 of the guide says: We will not normally return a deed for execution by the disponees. It is for you to ensure that the trustees have executed the document if necessary. That is not followed up by saying what the consequences are if the TR1 is not signed or no JO1 is submitted.

                The question here is whether the declaration is of any effect if the TR1 was not signed by the OP and partner and, if it is not, what the default position is.

                Question for the OP: Do the following words appear on the title register?

                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.

                Comment


                  #9
                  I had a look a TiC properties I own in unequal share where the TR1 functions to make the split unequal, and they have section 10 with percentages as you say, and are signed as a deed.

                  However the important thing for me is that although HMLR received something that enabled them to enter the restriction (presumably a COPY of the TR1 and the word of the solicitor) the ORIGINAL of the TR1 is in the solicitors file with my other deeds -- so it did not go off to HMLR at all.

                  As far as I know if an original of a deed cannot be located there is a problem, and HMLR (unlike say the office of the Public Guardian) does not hold the original deed. Nor is the information they hold definitive or final (the split might be changed without informing HMLR).

                  Would it not be sensible to consider that all HMLR is holding and conveying publicly is that
                  a) There is a TiC type restriction in effect
                  b) That there will be some form of deed (which might be limited to the original signed TR1 but might also be something else we don't know about)
                  c) That the people who will know and should have these deeds are the trustees here named

                  They don't require a signed deed, because all they are recording is that they have been told that a Deed exists (which might be the original of the very same form). If they recorded the fact of a Deed and there is no Deed to be found, then it is as if there was not deed (and the form-filler might as well have completed box 2 in question 10 which does not require a deed).

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  • What questions to ask your conveyancer?
                    ash72
                    I know reading the documents will highlight some of the questions, but is there a standard checklist that you should ask your conveyancer?
                    22-10-2019, 08:17 AM
                  • Established use right outside demised lease? Help
                    Bengt Lagander
                    We are looking at a 2 floor freehold with a garden at back of house ground floor which has a long lease on 1st floor. The title plan of long lease clearly shows the demise is at 1st floor only. There is access to the 1st floor from the front.

                    However in reality there is a wooden external...
                    19-10-2019, 09:35 AM
                  • Reply to Established use right outside demised lease? Help
                    Lawcruncher
                    Whilst the title may may show that the garden is not included in the demise of the first floor, you need to look at the lease to see if any rights are granted over the garden. Such rights could be:

                    · An exclusive right to use the garden
                    · A right to share use of the garden
                    ...
                    19-10-2019, 17:04 PM
                  • Reply to Established use right outside demised lease? Help
                    pilman
                    Unless there is an easement referred to within the Lease then constant use of a right of way by a tenant cannot become legal when there is a common landlord of the two properties.

                    Someone will need to read through the whole of the lease to find out whether the current situation is lawful...
                    19-10-2019, 16:35 PM
                  • Fence on either side who own's which
                    ash72
                    Is there a golden rule, if the deeds to not specify, who owns and maintains the right or left hand side of the fencing? It's a mid terrace house, I always under the impression that the right hand side of the property was your's to maintain. I tried to look on an aerial view and there's five houses in...
                    15-10-2019, 14:55 PM
                  • Reply to Fence on either side who own's which
                    pilman
                    It may not seem right, but one end of a terrace will always have responsibility for the end fence or even both fences, unless the side fences erected to separate properties are shown to be party fences in a conveyance. Some of the older paper deeds did use an inward facing "T" to identify...
                    17-10-2019, 12:39 PM
                  • Boundary dispute
                    Pilavas719
                    Hello All,

                    Thanks for setting this forum up.
                    I have been going through a boundary dispute since I moved into our current property a little background below:

                    We moved in on the 12th of July 2016 and the following day my next door neighbor tried to moved the fence 12...
                    14-10-2019, 14:06 PM
                  • Reply to Boundary dispute
                    Pilavas719
                    Thanks Lawcrancher, I have visited Jon Maynard's website I even had the pleasure of booking an hour consultation with him, he completely agreed that my neighbour was in the wrong. I have probably read everything online about boundary disputes already. I have come across this forum today and thought...
                    14-10-2019, 16:04 PM
                  • Reply to Boundary dispute
                    Lawcruncher
                    The following statements are usually true:

                    · If a house owner wants to build an extension and it would be handy if the neighbour's fence was in the wrong place and could be moved towards the neighbour, the fence is in the right place and the boundary follows the fence.

                    ·
                    ...
                    14-10-2019, 15:56 PM
                  • Reply to Boundary dispute
                    Pilavas719
                    A line drawn at the 50% mark on the title plan with no measurements has an accuracy of a meter, Since the title plan holds no ground to demarcate the boundary line render's it useless in my case. we are disputing 3.6 meter of land between our properties where I have 2.2m and my neighbour has 1.4m. ...
                    14-10-2019, 15:54 PM
                  Working...
                  X