passing property without solicitors

[Camber dave]

hypothetical
A few years ago I wrote out a piece of paper and handed my wife my half of the house
it was dated and witnessed
and the reason given

is this a legal doc or has it got to go through a legal bod
many thanks

[fredpuli47]

Let's have a bit of information.Is this a freehold or a leasehold?.Is it subject to any legal charge?

Is it registered land ?.

What was the 'reason given'?

The transfer purports to be on a date 'some years ago'. Why have you done nothing about it in the intervening years ? Did you ever think to try to register it ?

How do you propose to satisfy the Land Registry of the validity of this transaction? Nothing has been done about it for years. Why do you wish to do something now?

It is possible to convey land or an interest in it , by deed. It is possible that the document you have created may be construed and taken as a deed. Did you express it as a deed? Was it signed 'as a deed'?

[Camber dave]

Hi Fredpuli47
thanks for taking the time to reply

The Marraige took place 30years ago and it had complications that involved children which the wife undertook took to resolve

The property is freehold and no charges or morgage

The gift was given to ensure that the wife felt secure after the problems she had, had in a previous marraige and was made on completion of Morgage

This question only came up recently when information was gleaned from a not so reliable scource that legal advice had to be involved

A problem was never invisaged before that, as it was assumed that a document signed and witnessed by an independant person would suffice

The hand written doc states that person 1(named) has from this day (date) passed over to the wife Named the 50% of the property that was jointly owned and then goes into the reason

It was done this way to save at that time some �400. which didn't seem required
I hope this helps
Dave

[fredpuli47]

A deed is a straightforward formal document.

Under the Law of Property Act 1925 section 52 "all conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void...unless made by deed" By the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1989, a document is not a deed "unless it makes clear on is face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it......(whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed, or otherwise )" It has to be signed by the maker and that signature attested by a witness present.

From what you say, the word 'Deed' or words such as 'signed as a deed' do not appear on the document. It is not 'clear on its face' that is intended to be a deed.You'd have to argue '.or otherwise' applied. I don't think you'd succeed ,certainly in the one place that matters, the Land Registry..This is not registered land, evidently. When next it is conveyed it will become registered. The Land Registry will not accept a document which is not clearly a deed and so they will not show your wife as ever having the sole ownership.They'll want the express words to show it's a deed, as described above, not circumstances but plain words that it's a deed..

Your document is not a deed and the purported transfer was not valid .

For all that why does it matter? It's a mystery what possible problem you thought was being avoided or resolved then or now unless it's to do with inheritance. Have you and your wife made wills? You ought to.

[Peter Pedant]

But hey that doesnt matter, you can go to a solicitor or licensed conveyancer - I like them, they're better - and get it typed up.


[and as an aside, why do people try to transfer large value properties with a piece of paper, typex, and a rubber band ? Take a magic want, say "issy wissy woo!" and hey presto ! Mrs Mopp up the road told me it was a valid transfer. that was in 1965 by the way.] aaargh

[fredpuli47]

No, Peter Pedant but it makes great work for solicitors later, when they have to conjure up some reason in equity why the property should be treated as belonging to the claimant, or the claimant having some equitable claim on it, and are reduced to praying in aid a bit of paper like this in support of whatever other evidence they can find (and , in this case, failing absolutely ) And all for the want of a piece of A4 with the right words on it, duly executed.

It's not as though there's any obvious, valid, reason why this intended transaction was necessary in the first place (or is now), either. I empathise with Camber Dave, who can help on that, no doubt, but it looks odds on that his or his wife's fears were misplaced. . And if they've made wills they'll have ruled out any intestacy claims.

[jaycee401]

would a transfer still be valid if the signature of the transferee was not witnessed at the same time the transferee signed it ie witnessed a day later?

[Peter Pedant]

Jaycee
For a will, the will-signer's signature MUST be witnessed by the two witnesses at the time he signs it and in front of each other.

In this case, because the transfer has not been legally effected we think, it doesnt matter, who has signed what and when, it is still invalid.

as a general rule because of this above, I never witness a signature unless I have seen the person sign it - really because in the event of a dispute - A saying this is not my signature - question 1 is gonna be - did you see A sign it?


Mr B, a work colleague said a propos of very little - I have never witnessed any document of yours Peter.
The very next day I re-executed my will, with two other witnesses as he had clearly forgotten his part in it - but I was surprised to read a few weeks ago that a will has been declared as valid, even tho one witness forgot he had signed it. Not a risk I wanted to take.

[Camber dave]

Hi All
Thank you for all the info
you are an intellegent lot
many thanks again
Dave

[jaycee401]

thanks peter, does the same apply for a deed of transfer on a property transfer TR1