- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
I'm seeking advice on a joint ownership dispute that hasn't yet gone to court but may fall under TOLATA if unresolved.
The property is held as joint tenants between myself and another party. We purchased it together and lived in it jointly for around five years. In mid-2018, the other party was arrested and subsequently convicted of serious offences involving my child. He has not returned to the property since that time, and I've lived there alone ever since with my family.
Despite the circumstances of his removal, he continued to contribute to the mortgage for a period following his departure, but all contributions from his side ceased in late 2020. Since then, I have solely paid the mortgage, maintained the property, and covered all other bills and responsibilities. It's worth noting that the co-owner has had no practical involvement in the property during that time, and for safeguarding reasons, cannot return.
Throughout his time in prison, I made various efforts to engage in negotiations to buy out his share, but these were ignored or led nowhere. Only now, over four and a half years later, he has re-engaged via a solicitor and is asking for a 50/50 equity split. During this time, the value of the property has significantly increased, making it far more difficult (and arguably unfair) for me to purchase his share outright. It raises the question of whether this long delay was intentional, in order to benefit from a rise in equity.
We both agree on the current market valuation and total equity figure. The disagreement lies in how this equity should be split, given my continued sole contributions and the co-owner's forced absence due to criminal behaviour. I recently referenced Jones v Kernott to illustrate that courts can and do adjust shares when circumstances justify it — though I accept each case is fact-specific.
At this point, I would appreciate any thoughts on:
Thank you for any insights or suggestions on how best to approach this from here.
The property is held as joint tenants between myself and another party. We purchased it together and lived in it jointly for around five years. In mid-2018, the other party was arrested and subsequently convicted of serious offences involving my child. He has not returned to the property since that time, and I've lived there alone ever since with my family.
Despite the circumstances of his removal, he continued to contribute to the mortgage for a period following his departure, but all contributions from his side ceased in late 2020. Since then, I have solely paid the mortgage, maintained the property, and covered all other bills and responsibilities. It's worth noting that the co-owner has had no practical involvement in the property during that time, and for safeguarding reasons, cannot return.
Throughout his time in prison, I made various efforts to engage in negotiations to buy out his share, but these were ignored or led nowhere. Only now, over four and a half years later, he has re-engaged via a solicitor and is asking for a 50/50 equity split. During this time, the value of the property has significantly increased, making it far more difficult (and arguably unfair) for me to purchase his share outright. It raises the question of whether this long delay was intentional, in order to benefit from a rise in equity.
We both agree on the current market valuation and total equity figure. The disagreement lies in how this equity should be split, given my continued sole contributions and the co-owner's forced absence due to criminal behaviour. I recently referenced Jones v Kernott to illustrate that courts can and do adjust shares when circumstances justify it — though I accept each case is fact-specific.
At this point, I would appreciate any thoughts on:
- Whether a court might consider an unequal division based on these facts
- How much weight is likely to be given to one party's sole financial and practical maintenance of the home
- Whether the prolonged delay in re-engagement (potentially for financial gain) might be viewed unfavourably by the court
- Any other similar cases that might be relevant
- The correct method of calculating adjustments (e.g. whether deductions are made from total equity first, or from individual shares after a 50/50 split
Thank you for any insights or suggestions on how best to approach this from here.
