Joint house purchase

[chas2008]

is it possible to purchase a property jointly but with only one person paying for it ?? mother & daughter( not husband/wife)

[woofgang]

Why do you want to buy it jointly?

[jackthehat]

Will it be mortgaged?

[hc4361]

Will you be needing a mortgage?

[ladybirder]

Don't see why not but of course should the one paying the mortgage default, the other will be liable as well.

[hc4361]

If you need a mortgage the lender will not allow a second person to be on the title deeds and not the mortgage.

[ummmm]

If it's mortgaged both will have to pass all the checks.

[chas2008]

no mortgage involved

[jackthehat]

In that case, of course.

[chas2008]

thats what my wife thought,
the contracts are about to be exchanged and the solicitor has rang her and told her no and is making her forward a signed letter saying she wants her name taken off the deeds...

[hc4361]

That's very odd. Have you had an explanation?

[chas2008]

the senior solicitor did explain it to her but i think it went over her head..as contracts are within 1-2 days of exchanging she doesnt want anything to go wrong so she has agreed to sign the letter

[hc4361]

There will be nothing to stop her adding daughter's name to the Title when sale is completed, anyway.

[sallybb]

how odd my husband and daughter purchased a leasehold property outright in equal shares , both names on deeds no problems!

[Peter Pedant]

Yes definitely

[FredPuli43]

Is the proposed ownership a tenancy in common or a joint tenancy? A joint tenancy is when the two own the property but on the death of one the survivor becomes the owner of the whole property . That is automatic, the deceased's interest in the property ceases on their death, therefore there is nothing of it for them to leave to anyone.

A tenancy in common is when the two own the property in whatever share they decide.It might be half each or two-thirds to one third or any other share. Then both have an interest which they can sell or pass on on death.If one wants the whole property to be sold, to realise their share,and the other doesn't want it sold, the first can achieve that with a court order for sale .

Is it that the solicitor now wants the sole owner shown to be the person who is paying? It is not clear from what you say. If he/she wants something else that's more mysterious.

[chas2008]

solicitor is insisting on the person paying to be the sole purchaser/owner,i am more than aware of joint/common tennacy ...and both options are a no (according to solicitor)

kapar, that was the thinking behind it...

[FredPuli43]

chas,on here we don't know whether someone is familiar with the law or not. People talk of being or becoming 'joint owners' quite colloquially without knowing there are two ways in which that can be or the consequences
It looks as though the solicitor was, rightly or wrongly, wary of the motives for the proposed transaction and didn't want to be involved.

[chas2008]

we are going to get the solicitor to put in writing exactly the reasons for his decision, its still odd though that he waited until hours before exchanging especially when its been ongoing for over 2 months.
The solicitor was also more than aware of the reasons behind it...

[woofgang]

t might be that a colleague has just realised what is happening and warned him not to get involved with what might be a sticky situation.....