Need vacant possession

Oh so not a legacy. Four owners who are not related? I think it might matter whose “right-to-buy” it was, as it would have been the tenant prior to purchase. The mother?

If not exclusively yours and/or the other owners’ and you have obtained the property at a discount, arguably some or all of the benefit of that should go to the mother’s estate, which might include the resident son.

If it has to be sold as part of your divorce then the son cannot prevent it but he can claim a share of his mother’s beneficial interest (the value of the discount) if it was her “right to buy” and not yours.

Reply to the comment left by “Puzzler ” at “21/05/2014 – 20:23“:

On what legal basis did you arrive at that conclusion?

I’d have thought the mother (in-law) would have been advised to exercise her Right to Buy and take the money from relatives in return for assignment of a beneficial interest of 25% each whilst retaining the legal title in her name. On that basis I don’t see how your logic would compute?
.

I suggest that all this could get very messy. Why not offer to sell your share to the other three and save yourself a lot of hassle and walk away with the cash that you can put down as a deposit on a BTL.

Reply to the comment left by “Devon Landlord” at “21/05/2014 – 21:12“:

Excellent suggestion 🙂
.

Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “21/05/2014 – 21:09“:

Sorry only just seen this, I was referring to the “profit” element after the amount of the discounted price (which would be apportioned as you say). Profits are divided equally if there are joint owners after the initial contributions are repaid. The profit here could be argued to belong to the person whose right to buy it was and so be transferred according to probate.

Comment regarding puzzler’s statement. if I had been the person lending the money to the person buying the home (quarter share) I would expect the ‘profit ‘ proportion to come to me upon the sale as the buyer could not have bought without my contribution. However, as the circumstances have changed and it could all get messy and acrimonious I stick with my previous suggestion which was to offer to sell the share to the relatives and walk away from the problem if possible.

Devon Landlord.

Reply to the comment left by “Devon Landlord” at “15/02/2015 – 10:15“:

Hello, Devon landlord, yes probably a lot of people would think that. I used to think that if two people invested in a property at different amounts then the profit would be divided in the same proportion. However that is not the case in law. Each party gets their contribution back and the rest is divided equally. If it was a straightforward sale then you would be right but the Right to Buy scheme was meant to help those with the right to buy not their relatives. Therefore it could possibly be assigned according to her will or intestacy which would mean the resident son could have a claim on a share of the proceeds although I don’t think he can remain in residence for longer than one year. I am no expert but I know that probate is a very dark art and the subsequent wranglings could make the whole deal a nightmare. I do agree with Devon if you can find a way to get out of this arrangement then take it but it may be easier said than done.