Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Muskoka

Title Deed

Recommended Posts

Don't know if anybody can advise me on this; I've got a HIP on a property and in the title deed it shows;- 1995 (is the purchase date) Proprieter - Mr x (the vendor) and Summer 07 -No disposition by a sole proprietor of the land under which capital money arises is to beregistered except under an order of the registrar or of the Court. And then, autumn 07 - it says Proprieter - (well known bank). Vendor is living in property. Anything strange there do you think? or am I just being suspicious minded ? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know if anybody can advise me on this; I've got a HIP on a property and in the title deed it shows;- 1995 (is the purchase date) Proprieter - Mr x (the vendor) and Summer 07 -No disposition by a sole proprietor of the land under which capital money arises is to beregistered except under an order of the registrar or of the Court. And then, autumn 07 - it says Proprieter - (well known bank). Vendor is living in property. Anything strange there do you think? or am I just being suspicious minded ? :ph34r:

A quick google search suggests that in summer 2007 it was owned by "Tenants In Common". This is an alternative to "Joint Tenants" whereby if one of the parties dies their share goes to their estate rather than directly to the "Joint Tenant"

i.e. there was a joint mortgage on the property :)

More info here:

http://www.questbrook.co.uk/joint.htm

Edit: Typo

Edited by narrowescape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. I purposely was vague with my original entry (which may have confused the issue). Proprieters were actually Mr & Mrs x. in 95. BUT 1) Proprietor from 07 is showing as the bank.... How come Prop is showing as the bank do you think? On viewing, I was told by the vendor (Mrs x) that Mr x had left the property & found another Mrs. 2) Would this be why there is this note on the title deed that no capital money is to be registered, etc except under order by registrar or the court do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for that. I purposely was vague with my original entry (which may have confused the issue). Proprieters were actually Mr & Mrs x. in 95. BUT 1) Proprietor from 07 is showing as the bank.... How come Prop is showing as the bank do you think? On viewing, I was told by the vendor (Mrs x) that Mr x had left the property & found another Mrs. 2) Would this be why there is this note on the title deed that no capital money is to be registered, etc except under order by registrar or the court do you think?

I'm not a solicitor (far from it!), but based on the additional info and some googling I'll have a stab at a possible scenario.

Since they were initially together, they would probably have been Joint Tenants so that if one of them died, the other would get their share. Since they now live separately, they may well have registered a change to the deed making them Tenants In Common. That is what the wordy clause means. The effect of this would be to ensure that if one of them died the other would not automatically inherit their share (makes sense, I think, given that there is a new Mrs X)

As to why the bank is now listed as the proprietor I'm not sure. Normally I would have thought that this would suggest a repo but since Mrs X is currently living there this is clearly not the case. Another possibility is that the property has actually been transferred to the bank via a home reversion (also called lifetime lease) plan. In these schemes, you get a cash sum, and the legal right to occupy the property rent-free for the remainder of your life, but the plan provider actually owns the property. Link here:

http://www.agepartnership.co.uk/home-reversion-scheme.html

I need to stress that the above is guesswork, so I think your best bet is to speak to your solicitor as he should be able to find out exactly what is going on. It might also be worth talking to Mrs X to see if she can throw any light on the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much. At the moment Mrs x wants too much money, so I'm just sitting on the fence with this one. Thanks again though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one of the two owners has died and the tenancy is a tenancy in common, then the remaining proprietor is obliged to appoint another trustee to act with them. The trustee need not be registered but must join in the execution of any subsequent transfer document. In this instance it appears that they have chosen to register the trustee.

As there are now two owners again, the land can be sold and the restriction can be disregarded. (the restriction states

"No disposition by a sole proprietor of the land").

This is assuming you have correctly described what you have in front of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.