How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Buachaill Your Own Question
Buachaill, Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10973
Experience:  Barrister 17 years experience
Type Your Law Question Here...
Buachaill is online now

At the trial date my joint mortgage agreed with out having

This answer was rated:

at the trial date my joint mortgage agreed with out having the trial to give me what I was asking for which was a sole conduct of sale plus what he own me of money as he never contributed of paying his share of mortgage or maintenance of the property.
in that court order it says the minimum price sale will be 325000,
I had one offer for that price but the buyer fail to get his mortgage sorted, now I have another offer but it is 310000, I asked the joint mortgage to accept it and have this saga finish but he is refusing.
the house need modernization and also there is planing permission granted next door that buyers are concern with. I mention that to him but he is still not happy to accept 310K.
can I apply to court to change the minimum price in the order or remove it completely?
1. Yes, you can apply to vary the order made by the court. Although the order drawn up was agreed between the parties, a court has inherent jurisdiction to vary or amend any order made between parties. So you simply go back into court and have your solicitor put down an application to vary the order. The court can then rule on the variation. As it relates to one simple point, namely the issue of whether there should be a sale at the best possible price or whether the 325k minimum has to be reached, the court will deal with the point quickly. Ultimately, most courts will see a sale happening as being better than no sale at all, as if there is no sale, then the matter never gets settled between the parties and more litigation ensues.
Buachaill and other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
thanks for your reply.
My solicitor had already wrote to them and here is what was their reply:Thank you for your letter dated 4th August 2015 and letter of today.
We noted your comments.
Please note that your client stated on numerous occasions that our client had no interest in the property. The court finally arrived at a decision that our client was an interested party and awarded him a percentage of the equity which you and your client refused time and time again.
In regards ***** ***** of this matter our client had made two reasonable proposals. Both of which your client refused. Our client had also stated clearly that he is an interested party to the sale.
We would like to reiterate that as joint owners of the property our client is entitled to be fully informed and made aware of any changes to the process of sale. We find it strange that up until the 27th July you had not informed us of any issues. Though the court order states that you are to conduct the sale it doesn’t restrict our client from obtaining information from your client as the progress of the sale. Should you refuse to provide the required information we will have no option but to request the court to vary the order.
With reference to your comments in respect of our client's "unreasonable behaviour " our client complied with the order and returned the documentation which was completed on the 10th June 2015. You and your client had ample time to inform us of any issues relating the sale. However, you waited till the 27th July 2015 to forward to us a letter dated 24th July 2015 whereby there is no explanation but rather abrupt solution was based on the information from your estate agent.
We refer to you letter dated 24th July 2015, in which you informed us that property would require re-evaluation. This letter was only forwarded to us on the 27th July 2015 requesting our client response. Please confirm whether your client has carried out any revaluation.
We refer to Roger Platt’s letter dated 27th July 2015 and note that one of the reasons the property fell through was due to the following “the previous tenant was not co-operative with viewings, and several potential buyers were lost as viewing were unable to be made,” . Please clarify whether the tenant was not aware of sale? Please clarify up until what date was the tenant residing as this letter indicates that the property had been on the market since 19th March 2015.
Please also note, due to your client actions, our client is still facing difficulty to obtain mortgage.
Our client now proposes two options to resolve the matter.
1. Our client will hire his own independent valuation agent to inspect the property to ensure whether the price proposed by your client is acceptable and if that being the case he will consider your proposal of lowering the price without proceeding to the courts save as to cost.
2. Our client would move into the property as the property is empty and pay half of the monthly mortgage payment until the property is sold.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,could you please advise?my solicitor reply to them today saying this .Dear Sirs
Thank you for your email.
We ought to point out that the court did not make any ruling in this matter. In fact your client attended court on the day of the final hearing and presumably under the advice of your counsel conceded the points as they had been put to him. In actual fact your client agreed almost every provision we required save our costs. The court did not award your client any equity, this was negotiated and agreed between the respective parties. We draw your attention to the court order which reads that it was 'By Mutual Consent', these words plainly mean that both parties consented to the order that then followed. If the court had heard the arguments and determined the matter the order would read differently. It is surprising that as legal representatives in this matter you have not appreciated this point.
Please provide authority for saying that your client should be given any input whatsoever when sole conduct of sale has been given to our client. Your client has not been prevented from finding out what stage the sale has reached, however (and with respect) that is not what he appears to be asking for. It appears that having given our client sole conduct of the sale he is now trying to exercise some say in this matter. Plainly this is not acceptable and represents a breach of the agreed order.
We note that you appear to be linking your client's signature of the contract documents on 10 June 2015 with our letter of 24 July and suggesting that there has been some sort of delay in dealing with this matter. This is not correct. Our client only became aware that the buyer was struggling to obtain a mortgage in the days prior to our letter. There has therefore been no delay in notifying you of the issue and in fact the