High Court Exercises Wisdom of Solomon in Ordering Sale of Family Home

5th October 2020 By

Amidst ever-rising property prices, it can make good sense for friends or relatives to club together to buy a home where they can all live together. As a High Court ruling showed, however, the continuing harmony in human relationships upon which such arrangements rely can sadly never be guaranteed.

The case concerned a 14-bedroom urban property, worth about £1.9 million, which was acquired by five brothers. The house, which was at one point occupied by no fewer than 23 members of the family, was owned by the brothers in equal shares under the terms of a trust deed.

The trust, which was entered into by the brothers some years after they acquired the house, stated that it had been bought as a home for themselves and their families. Crucially, it included a declaration that, save by unanimous agreement between all surviving brothers, the property could not be sold whilst any of them remained alive.

After the family was afflicted by a serious breakdown in personal relations, the two younger brothers moved out. With a view to realising their shares in the property, they sought an order requiring its sale. However, their application was successfully resisted by their two surviving brothers and the heirs of the deceased fifth brother, who relied on the terms of the deed.

In allowing the younger brothers’ appeal against that outcome, the Court noted their testimony that the rift within the family was irreconcilable and that they could never envisage returning to the property. On that basis, one of the purposes of the trust – to provide a home for all surviving brothers and their families – could no longer be achieved. The express prohibition on sale of the property without the unanimous consent of all the surviving brothers was not intended to apply to a situation where relations within the family had irretrievably broken down.

The Court acknowledged that an enforced sale of the property was bound to disrupt the lives of the defendants, some of them elderly, who had for many years called it home. There was, however, nothing unjust or inequitable about such an outcome, which offered the prospect of a clean break and which would reduce the risk of further litigation.

The Court ordered the property’s sale under Section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. It directed, however, that the defendants be afforded a reasonable opportunity to buy out the younger brothers’ shares prior to the house being placed on the open market.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...

Defiance of Family Court Orders Will Always End Badly

10th April, 2024 By

Custodial sentences very rarely come into play in the family courts. Where there have been repeated breaches of court orders, however, judges may have little choice but to clamp down. This was illustrated in the High Court during committal proceedings that stemmed from a child custody dispute. The background to the case involved contested proceedings between the father and mother of a young child. These concluded with a court order establishing that the child – a daughter – would live with the mother. Three months later the daughter travelled with...

Claim for SDLT Relief on Annex Unsuccessful

8th April, 2024 By

When buying a property consisting of more than one residence, it may be possible to claim multiple dwellings relief (MDR) against Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). However, there are certain conditions that must be met for an MDR claim to succeed, as a recent case illustrates. A property was purchased for £1.8 million. Prior to the purchase, the buyer had agreed with the seller that he would be allowed to carry out works to construct a self-contained annex at the property. The buyer's SDLT return included a claim for MDR...

Divorce – Alleged Bigamy Raised in Financial Remedies Dispute

5th April, 2024 By

The issue of bigamy and its potential impact on a person's ability to seek financial remedies in a divorce came under the legal spotlight recently. A husband made an application to strike out his wife's financial remedies claim on the basis that she had committed bigamy and deceived him into a marriage when she knew she was not free to marry. This deceit, he claimed, was so egregious that, as a matter of public policy, she should be debarred from pursuing any claim for financial remedies against him. The husband based...