Owning Property Jointly - The Rewards, The Risks, and The Remedy

"Co-ownership is the mother of disputes" (old Roman law maxim)

There can be big advantages to buying property jointly but be aware of the risks and take steps to lessen them before you put pen to paper.

The problem comes if there is a falling-out with your co-owner. Perhaps you come to blows on your usage of the property, or on the incurring of expenses, or on whether it is time to sell, or perhaps you are splitting from each other entirely. That could be a business partnership terminating, or a marriage ending in divorce, or (as in the case we discuss below) a failed romantic relationship. Our courts must regularly resolve bitter joint-ownership disputes between ex-spouses, ex-friends, ex-colleagues, siblings, and close relatives - none of whom dreamed they might ever come to blows when they first hatched plans to buy property jointly.
If a dispute does arise, how will you resolve it? And if you split up, who keeps the property? Or do you sell it jointly, and if so how, and when? How will the bond and other property debts be settled?

The good news is that by and large the risk of dispute can be reduced with a bit of foresight and planning. Preferably with professional advice and assistance - this is after all likely to be an important asset in both your estates.

Let's have a look at a recent High Court case to illustrate -

A breakup and a fight

• A couple in a "romantic relationship" co-habited in a house of which they were the joint registered owners in undivided half shares.
• When the relationship broke down irretrievably, the partners were unable to agree on a method of ending the property ownership. One partner moved out and the other, after changing the locks, applied to the High Court for an order terminating the joint ownership and appointing a receiver/liquidator to sell it.
• The other party fought this application, contending that the couple had, in addition to being in a personal relationship, also been in a "universal partnership" which still existed.

A co-owner can normally insist on partition of the property at any time

The general rule in our law is this: "No co-owner is normally obliged to remain a co-owner against his will." Thus "every co-owner of property may insist on a partition of the property at any time. Even if there is an agreement to constitute perpetual joint ownership, the co-owner may demand partition at any time. If the co-owners cannot agree on the way the property is to be divided, then the Court is empowered to make an order which appears to be fair and equitable."

That opens the door to a wide range of options for the court, but often it means an order for sale of the property (possibly by public or private auction) and division of the net proceeds between the joint owners.

But is it "bound" or "free" co-ownership?

But it's more complicated than that. Our law recognizes two types of co-ownership -

1. In a "free" co-ownership, the co-ownership is the only legal relationship between the co-owners. In this event, the rule above applies - either joint owner can insist on division at any time.
2. In a "bound" co-ownership however "there is a separate and distinct legal relationship between them of which the co-ownership is but one consequence. Co-ownership is not the primary or sole purpose of their relationship".
   
   In this event, the co-ownership can only be dissolved when the primary relationship is terminated. In this case, the party opposing the court application said that no order of division could be made until the "universal partnership" between the parties had ended.

The Court found that there had indeed been a universal partnership in existence, in other words that this had been a case of "bound" co-ownership. But it also held (on the facts) that both the romantic relationship and the universal partnership had ended when the parties stopped living together. The romantic relationship was the 'tie' between the parties and when it came to an end, any situation of bound co-ownership became a free co-ownership to which the "end at any time" rule applied.

The result - the Court ordered the joint ownership terminated and appointed a receiver and liquidator to sell the property, pay all the property debts, and divide the proceeds between the parties.

The remedy

So, the risk is finding yourself in the same unhappy position as the ex-partners in this case, having to ask the High Court to sort out your dispute for you.

Happily, however there is a simple remedy. Before you buy property jointly, have a professional draw you a full
agreement setting out (at the very minimum) -

• The nature of your relationship. In a co-habitation scenario, you should probably also have a full "co-habitation" agreement, whilst a business scenario should be linked to your existing arrangement.
• The best vehicle for co-ownership - for some, a simple "let's put the house in both our names" will be enough, for others a company or a trust may be better
• Who will own what percentage of the property.
• Who will contribute what to the costs of purchase and to the property expenses and upkeep
• Who will have what use of the property.
• What will happen if one or both of you wants to leave the relationship, dies, or is incapacitated.

Every situation will be unique.

If the parties in this case had put such an agreement in place, they might well have saved themselves the stress, wasted time and legal costs of a protracted and complex dispute. The liquidator/receiver's charges for selling the property and paying out their shares to them will no doubt rub a lot of salt into all those wounds.

A final thought: Having a formal contract in place is not a forecast that things will go wrong between you - on the contrary, it should greatly reduce the risk of any dispute or unhappiness arising in the first place.