Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours..

[Gob]

Carlisle businessman Chris Meyer has become embroiled in a property nightmare after attempting to sell his three-bedroom flat – and discovering it’s actually owned by his next door neighbour.



The house he’d bought six years earlier, it transpired, was the one next to the one he’s been living in.

Of the 15 flat owners in the building on Carlisle’s Willow Holme Road, ten now face the same problem.

Mr Meyer first put his home on the market three years ago for £80,000. “I had loads of interest and an offer of £76,000,” he told the Carlisle News & Star.

“I’d chosen the new house, had the mortgage approved, a survey sorted out, and I was due to get the keys in a few weeks when the solicitor for the person buying my flat got in touch to say there was a problem.

“Basically, I live in number 8 and thought I had bought number 8. But Land Registry documents show that I actually own Number 9. The man who thought he’d bought Number 7 actually owns my flat. It’s the same for 10 of the 15 flats.

“It’s a complete mess. Not surprisingly, my buyer pulled out. We’re three years on and we seem to be no further forward.

Nick Gutteridge of Burnetts, the solicitors firm that conducting conveyancing on the original sale, told the News & Star: “We are very clear that responsibility for checking the title report was with Mr Meyer.

“Although this is not a situation of our making, we have gone above and beyond in helping Mr Meyer to rectify the issue, including liaising with other property owners and their lenders.

“Given the many hours which have been spent (at no charge) in trying to assist him, it is disappointing that Mr Meyer has chosen to raise a grievance via the newspaper.

“We have previously encouraged Mr Meyer to seek independent legal advice and do so again. In the meantime, we are willing to continue to help, if he wants us to do so.”

[MajGenl.Meade]

So why don't they all just shuffle around and move into the flats they DO own?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Probably becuase of the neon green paint someone thought was a great color for the living room.

I guess they don't have "Title" companies who do a search and make sure the title to the place is correct and free and clear of any liens?
And the title insurance the buyer must pay for in case they screw up?

[Scooter]

Nick Gutteridge of Burnetts, the solicitors firm that conducting conveyancing on the original sale, told the News & Star: “We are very clear that responsibility for checking the title report was with Mr Meyer.

I'm sorry, but that's simply bullshit. What the fuck does one hire a lawyer for, when buying a house, if not to insure that issues precisely like this one do not occur?

[Big RR]

I would think so too Scooter, unless the solicitors act solely as closing agents and not advisors to either party. I know in my state now people can close and refinance without using a lawyer, but given the fact that this is likely the biggest purchase you are ever going to make, it doesn't make sense not to hire one IMHO.

[MajGenl.Meade]

“The Land Registry people say they need every owner’s approval to rectify the problem.

“Some of the flats are rented out – including the one next door that I own.

“The owners appear to be ignoring letters, and there seems to be nothing I can do.”

So that's why they can't all just move into the correct flats.

However, the problem seems to be with the way these flats were originally registered by the builder/owner. Even so....

“Burnetts have tried to sort it out but got absolutely nowhere.
“They’ve tried to get in touch with the five people on my floor – they’ve had only one response, and no response from the other owners.
“Burnetts have said that it was up to me to check the documents, but I paid them to do the conveyancing so that nothing like this would happen.

“That’s why you get a solicitor for these things.

Er, yes - and title insurance? I can't remember if they have that in the UK - it's been a while since I sold my house there (without a lawyer).

Even so again... the problem does seem to be that the titles are fine but ten of the properties are misidentified at source.

[Big RR]

Meade--based on this:;

Nick Gutteridge of Burnetts, the solicitors firm that conducting conveyancing on the original sale, told the News & Star: “We are very clear that responsibility for checking the title report was with Mr Meyer.

I think the title search revealed the problem and thus, the insurance would not cover it--it ordinarily excludes any problems uncovered by a search. This seesm like a big mess that will continue for a long time.

[Scooter]

It shouldn't have to if people act in reasonably good faith. It is obvious that everyone intended to purchase the unit they actually inhabit (or have rented to others to inhabit). So why not just sit around a table and figure out whose title needs to get transferred to whom so that title matches possession? I suspect that some greed has entered into it, where those who hold the title to a property more valuable than the one they thought they were buying are reluctant to do such a title swap.

I can't believe there isn't any sort of remedy in contract law to address such an obvious mistake.

[rubato]

Were these all cash sales? I would think a mortgage lender would have balked if the title search showed a problem at the sale.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

You may be right rubato; it does sa the property was not only mortgaged but surveyed. Pretty strange.

[Long Run]

Can't be anymore difficult to resolve this matter than a "historic" real estate case: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~hallman/PDF/Roughing.pdf

[datsunaholic]

Part of the problem is there are usually fees associated with property transfers. If it was as easy as just swapping titles, then there wouldn't be a problem. But those title swap transactions aren't cheap, and the folks involved already paid for them. Someone screwed up and won't take the blame or the cost of rectifying it, and adding in non-resident owners who won't respond isn't helping.

I don't know about the UK but here in the US it's extremely rare for a lawyer to be involved in normal real estate transactions. Of the 3 properties I purchased, a lawyer was involved in only one of them because it was a family transfer. The other 3 transactions (2 purchases and a sale) had no lawyers, no surveys, just a title search and reams of paper to sign. One property DID involve a lawyer later when I found out the house straddled the property line, and had since it was built in circa 1923. That shouldn't have involved a lawyer either- moving the property line should have been an easy job for a registered surveyor and a QC deed but I couldn't get the neighbor to agree on terms without consulting her son, who she then didn't bother to consult WITH. Her reasoning was, it had been that way when she bought her land in 1979 and it wasn't bothering anyone. Never mind that I couldn't get a remodel permit due to the property line issue, and Title Insurance was useless as they claimed there was no "loss" as I hadn't been sued or forced to do anything. So, I pissed off everyone involved as well as half my other neighbors by getting a lawyer, who against my wishes handled it with all the grace and subtlety of a chainsaw murderer, but the problem got resolved.

[Econoline]

I've been involved in 6 real estate transactions--3 purchases, 3 sales--and for each and every one I used a lawyer. Well worth the relatively minor expense.

[Jarlaxle]

I used a lawyer when I bought my house. Used a lawyer when I sold it. I cannot fathom anyone NOT using a lawyer.

[rubato]

They had a lawyer here and it was a total waste of money. Worse than a waste of money, they pretended to protect the buyers interests and then fucked him.

I would never shell out for such uselessness. Two homes sold and two homes bought w/o a shyster skimming off the top.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

The article mentions that the solicitor's conducted the conveyancing of the sale, not represented him and his interests. I would think they were more like the closing agents representing the title company, and all they did was to fill out the papers. If they erred, their duty was likely to the title company and not the buyer or seller.

My state has recently changed the rules permitting use of closing agents without attorneys. If a buyer or seller are interested enough to review the documents and understand them, it can work; but given the magnitude of the purchase/sale and the minor cost of the representation, it could well be penny wise/pound foolish. I occasionally free lance and represent title companies in such sales/refinances, and I always emphasize to them that I am not representing or advising them and have them sign a paper acknowledging that. My job in such transactions is merely to get the proper documents signed and collect/disburse the funds.