Can a Co-Owner Force the Sale of a Property?

When two or more people own property together, they are known as “co-owners”. In many cases, co-owners purchase property together with a shared intention as to how long it will be retained and when it should be sold. However, what happens when one co-owner wishes to sell and the other wishes to stay put?

Disputes often arise following the breakdown of a relationship, where one partner remains living in the family home, or where a property has been inherited by several beneficiaries, each with differing views as to whether it should be retained or sold.

The Nature of Co-Ownership: Joint Tenants vs Tenants in Common

Before considering whether a sale can be forced, it is important to understand the difference between the two principal forms of ownership. This is because the legal character of property ownership is central to understanding the parties’ respective rights to sell the property:

• Joint Tenancy implies equal ownership, where both partners have an undivided share in the property. Crucially, if one partner dies, their ‘share’ automatically transfers to the other.
• Tenants in Common allows for each co-owner to hold a distinct quantifiable share of the property, which can be inherited according to the co-owner’s will (or the intestacy rules). Often, co-owners will each have a 50% share of the property, but their shares may be unequal (e.g. 70/30). This form of ownership is often preferred where parties have contributed unequally to the purchase price or wish to retain separate financial interests.

Can a co-owner sell a property without consent?

The short answer is no. As a matter of law, all legal owners must agree to sell the property; one co-owner cannot unilaterally sell the property without the consent of the others, or without the Court’s permission (see below).

Where a property is held as tenants in common, it is technically possible for a co-owner to dispose of their distinct share. However, attempting to find a buyer who, in practice, will be willing to purchase a partial share of an occupied property is extremely difficult and rarely a commercially viable solution.

Applications for an Order for Sale: TLATA1996

If an agreement cannot be reached, a co-owner must apply to the court for an Order for Sale under section 14 of the Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA).

Crucially, the court is not a “rubber stamp” and possesses complete discretion in deciding whether to order a sale. In exercising that discretion, the court will have regard to a list of statutory factors, including:

1. The original intentions of the parties at the time of purchase.
2. The purpose for which the property is held (e.g., a family home vs. an investment).
3. The welfare of any minor children living in the property.
4. The interests of any secured creditors (like mortgage lenders).

These factors are non-exhaustive, and there may be other relevant factors which the court will consider, depending on the circumstances.

What happens if you are not recorded on the Title Deeds as the legal owner?

It is not uncommon for disputes to arise where an individual asserts an interest in a property despite not being named on the legal title.

In such circumstances, you can still force the sale of a property even if your name isn’t on the title deeds, provided you can demonstrate that you have acquired a ‘beneficial interest’ in the property.

How should the sale proceeds be divided?

Assuming it is agreed for the property to be sold, a common issue then arises as to how much each party should receive from the sale proceeds - particularly if one party has been living in the property solely and paying for repairs, expenditure on improvements or mortgage repayments.

The starting point, in cases of joint ownership, is that the parties are entitled to 50% of the net proceeds of sale after deducting the legal costs associated with selling the property and paying off any mortgage or other charges secured against the property.

However, this presumption may be displaced by a process known as equitable accounting. This allows the court to adjust the parties’ respective entitlements to reflect financial contributions made in relation to the property. For example, a co-owner who has made capital repayments towards the mortgage may be entitled to credit for those payments.

If one owner was “excluded” from the property, the court may also consider whether an occupation rent should be applied.

Ultimately, the division of proceeds is a fact-sensitive exercise and requires a careful assessment of the parties’ conduct and financial arrangements over time.

Practical Options for Resolving a Property Dispute Between Co-Owners

Whilst an Order for Sale is the appropriate mechanism to realise a co-owner’s share where agreement cannot otherwise be reached, in our experience, most cases are resolved without the need for formal legal proceedings.

There are a range of practical options available to the parties, including:

1. Buying out a co-owner’s share of the property: for example, by refinancing the mortgage, making a lump sum payment, or agreeing on a structured payment plan.
2. Delaying or postponing the sale of the property: allowing one party to remain living in the property for an agreed period.
3. Agreeing arrangements for occupation: including whether one party should pay an occupation rent where they have sole use of the property.
4. Mediation: if negotiations break down, seeking mediation from a professional can help both parties come to an agreement without involving the courts. Mediators are skilled in helping parties reach a mutually beneficial solution and can often prevent costly and lengthy legal battles.

The appropriate course will depend on the particular circumstances of the case, including each party’s financial position and resources, their ongoing needs, and the underlying purpose for which the property is held. Careful consideration of these factors, combined with strategic early legal advice, can often avoid the cost and uncertainty associated with contested court proceedings.

Conclusion

Disputes over property are rarely just about bricks and mortar; they are about financial independence and future security. While one owner can indeed initiate a forced sale under TLATA, the court’s role is to balance that request against the original intentions of the purchase and the needs of those living there. Navigating this process requires a balance of legal firming and pragmatic negotiation. The most successful outcomes are those where co-owners move from deadlock to a structured exit, protecting both their equity and their peace of mind.

How can Tozers help?

As a top firm for client satisfaction, we’ve built our reputation on listening first and talking second. We specialise in turning legalese into easily actionable and practical steps, ensuring you feel confident and informed as to your legal position and the options available to you.

Whether you are looking to release your equity or protect your right to remain in your home, we have the experience and expertise to help you understand your legal position and the practical options available so you can move forward with confidence.

Contact our legal experts