Crosswords4 mins ago
Tennants in common, 1 co-owner deceased, the other dissapeared 20 years ago
20 years ago a 'family friend' put his name to a mortgage obtained by my late sister, simply to facilitate the mortgage and expressed no interest in the property per se. He did not contribute towards the deposit or conveyancing fees etc, nor was it his intent or desire to contribute towards any mortgage payments (hence his reluctance to sign up as a guarantor). They signed as Tennants in common. A week or so after the mortgage was signed & completed, he disappeared, (apparently with the substantial proceeds from a business deal that should have been shared with his now estranged wife, and does not wish to be found), and apparently left the country. My late sister duly paid the mortgage up to the time of her death 4 years ago. during the years she held the property she made several attempts to find the missing person, to no avail, placing considerable stress on her health, which greatly contributed to her premature death at the age of 42.prior to the purchase 20 years ago, the house belonged to my parents until their death and was in fact our family home. (the property had been in the family for 40 years in total).
Matters were brought to a head when the mortgage company repossessed the house and sold it (the only way a sale could be achieved without the missing person). The problem now, is that the acting solicitors are refusing to pay out the surplus funds from the sale as they say they 'have no independent evidence of the respective ownership shares of the individuals', and that 'pay the proceeds into Court and then the executors will need to prove entitlement to the Court'.
Not only is this causing much distress to the family, but it is also compounded by the fact that my own home is subject to a suspended repossession order, pending the payment of arrears (final day on Thursday 14th May 2009), based on the assumption that I was to receive 50% of the surplus funds which have now been held by the solicitors who acted on behalf of the mortgage
Matters were brought to a head when the mortgage company repossessed the house and sold it (the only way a sale could be achieved without the missing person). The problem now, is that the acting solicitors are refusing to pay out the surplus funds from the sale as they say they 'have no independent evidence of the respective ownership shares of the individuals', and that 'pay the proceeds into Court and then the executors will need to prove entitlement to the Court'.
Not only is this causing much distress to the family, but it is also compounded by the fact that my own home is subject to a suspended repossession order, pending the payment of arrears (final day on Thursday 14th May 2009), based on the assumption that I was to receive 50% of the surplus funds which have now been held by the solicitors who acted on behalf of the mortgage
Answers
Best Answer
Nobody has yet answered this question. Once some answers have been given, alworthy will be able to select one answer as the best. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.There are no answers available for this question.