Owner-occupied homes
If the client has a beneficial interest in her/his home, that interest automatically becomes the property of the trustee in bankruptcy on her/his appointment. The trustee protects her/his interest by registering either a notice or a restriction at the Land Registry.
If the home is solely owned by the client, the legal title vests in the trustee and the client’s interest, which passes to the trustee, is the whole value of the property. If it is jointly owned, only the client’s share vests in the trustee, but this does not prevent the trustee from taking action to realise that share. The trustee can realise the value of that interest (eg, by selling it to a joint owner or forcing a sale of the property) and this does not have to be done before the client’s discharge from the bankruptcy. There is also the possibility that the client may have a beneficial interest in another property (eg, a former home – see here) which the trustee might seek to realise. The trustee has a three-year ’use it or lose it’ period from the date of the bankruptcy order to deal with the client’s interest in a property which, at the date of the bankruptcy order, is her/his sole or principal residence, or that of her/his spouse/civil partner or former spouse/civil partner. Otherwise, the interest no longer forms part of the client’s estate and transfers back to her/him. It is, therefore, no longer available to pay the client’s bankruptcy debts. However, this does not happen if, during the three-year period, the trustee: 1s283A IA 1986 •realises the interest – eg, by selling her/his interest to the client’s partner or some other third party. The full sale price must be paid to the trustee before the end of the three-year period; or
•applies for an order for sale or possession; or
•applies for a charging order in respect of the client’s interest; or
•comes to an agreement with the client about payment for her/his interest.
If the case has reached the two years and three months point and the client’s interest in the property is worth at least £5,000 and it is not possible to attract an insolvency practitioner to act as trustee (generally, the value of the client’s interest is less than £25,000) or sell the client’s interest to a willing purchaser, the official receiver should consider applying for a charging order. If the trustee decides to take this option, the charging order is for the value of the client’s interest in the property at the date of the charging order (including a deduction for the estimated costs of sale from the value of the property – currently 3 per cent) plus simple interest at the prescribed rate (currently 8 per cent a year) plus the costs of the application. However, where the value of the client’s interest is more than the total amount owed to the client’s unsecured creditors, the charging order is limited to the amount owed to unsecured creditors at the date of the application plus other amounts payable out of the client’s estate such as the bankruptcy expenses and statutory interest plus simple interest at 8 per cent a year and the costs of the application as above. Therefore, the client retains the benefit of any subsequent increase in the value of the property.
Note: the three-year period can be extended by the court for such longer period as it thinks just and reasonable, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.2s283A(6) IA 1986 and r10.170 I(E&W) Rules 2016 Low-value exemption
If the value of the client’s interest is less than the prescribed amount (£1,000), the court must dismiss any application by the trustee in bankruptcy for:3s313A IA 1986 •an order for the sale or possession of the property; or
•a charging order on the client’s interest in the property.
In valuing the client’s interest in the property, the court must disregard:4Art 3 Insolvency Proceedings (Monetary Limits) (Amendment) Order 2004, No.547 •any loans secured by mortgage or other charge against the property;
•any other third-party interest – eg, a joint owner’s share of equity;
•the reasonable costs of sale, currently estimated at 3 per cent of the gross value of the property.
Realising a client’s interest in the property
If another person shares ownership of the home and there is sufficient equity, the trustee tries to sell the client’s share to that person. S/he must obtain an up-to-date valuation at her/his own expense, plus details of any outstanding mortgages or secured loans, and pay her/his own legal costs (£211 under the low-costs conveyancing scheme).
If the property is jointly owned, the trustee requires the value of the client’s share (usually, 50 per cent of the equity) plus her/his legal costs, but allows some discount to take account of the savings made from not having to take possession of the property and conduct the sale. Any increase in the value of the property as a result of expenditure by either party after the date of bankruptcy should also be taken into account.
If the property is solely owned by the client, s/he may be able to buy back her/his interest from the trustee. If there is equity, the purchase money will have to come from a third party – eg, a friend or relative. Mortgage lenders are reluctant to agree to people buying an interest in property, unless they take some responsibility for the mortgage. In the case of jointly owned properties, the co-owner(s) is already responsible for the mortgage. In the case of solely owned properties, however, before agreeing to transfer her/his interest to a partner or third party, the trustee must ensure that arrangements have been made between the proposed transferee and the mortgage lender(s) for future payment of the mortgage.
The trustee usually seeks a court order for the sale of a jointly owned property if the non-bankrupt owner will not or cannot purchase the beneficial interest and there is sufficient equity. If there is a spouse or civil partner and/or children, their interests should be considered, but after a year these are overridden by the interests of the creditors unless the circumstances of the case are exceptional (see here). This means that, in practice, homes are not sold for at least a year after the bankruptcy. In deciding whether to order the sale of a house, the court must consider:5s335A IA 1986, as inserted by TLATA 1996 •the creditors’ interests;
•whether the spouse/civil partner contributed to the bankruptcy;
•the needs and resources of the children and spouse/civil partner;
•other relevant circumstances (but not the client’s needs).
If at the date of the of the bankruptcy order there is negative, or the equity is less than £1,000, the case is reviewed as soon as possible.
•If the property is in negative equity and the official receiver considers there is no reasonable prospect of a surplus becoming available from the property within the three-year period, s/he should consider taking steps to transfer her/his interest back to the client (known as early revesting).
•If the client’s share in the property is valued at less than £1,000 and the official receiver considers there is no reasonable prospect of a surplus in excess of £5,000 being available within the three-year period, s/he should consider early revesting.
•If the value of the client’s share in the property is worth more than £1,000, the trustee invites the client or a third party, such as a co-owner or family member, to buy back the client’s share.
•If it is not possible to sell the client’s share in this way and there is not sufficient equity to attract an insolvency practitioner to act as trustee, the official receiver as trustee should transfer the property to the Long Term Asset Distribution Team (LTADT). LTADT will review the position at the two year and three month stage. Where the value of the client’s interest is greater than £25,000 and there is no willing purchaser, the official receiver should seek the appointment of an insolvency practitioner to act as trustee.
If a charging order is obtained on the client’s share in the property, the trustee is not subject to any limitation period for seeking an order for its sale – ie, s/he can apply to the court for an order for sale at any time in the future.6Doodes v Gotham [2006] EWCA Civ 1080 If a property is sold, the trustee sends any money due to the co-owner or other person with an interest in the property on completion. It is important that people who share a home with a bankrupt person are independently advised by a solicitor, particularly if they have made direct contributions to the purchase price, because they may have an equitable or beneficial interest in the property for which they should be paid, even if they are not an ’owner’ on the deeds.
Endowment policies
If there is an endowment policy in place to pay a mortgage, it may vest in the trustee who can arrange for it to be sold. The policy is treated as an asset and taken into account when valuing the client’s interest in the property if:7See para 31.35M TM at http://tinyurl.com/987z25k •it has been formally assigned to the mortgage lender;
•the policy document is held by the mortgage lender;
•the mortgage lender’s interest in the policy for repayment of the mortgage has been noted with the insurance company; or
•there has been a specific agreement between the mortgage lender and the client that the policy will be used to pay the mortgage.
This may result in there being sufficient equity for the trustee to realise the property.
Exceptional circumstances
If an application is made for the sale of a property which is, or has been, the home of the client or the client’s spouse or civil partner or former spouse or civil partner, and it is more than one year after the date the client’s estate vested in the trustee, the court must assume that the interests of the bankrupt’s creditors outweigh all other considerations, unless the circumstances of the case are exceptional. Family hardship caused by the bankruptcy is not considered an exceptional circumstance.8s335A IA 1986 Exceptional circumstances
Before the Human Rights Act came into force on 2 October 2000, caselaw established that circumstances could only be exceptional if they were unusual. However, the decision in Pickard and another v Constable contains a useful summary of the current interpretation of the test.9Pickard and another v Constable [2017] EWHC 2475 (Ch) (Adviser 184 abstracts) 1. Even if there are exceptional circumstances, the court can still make an order for sale.
2. Exceptional circumstances relate to the personal circumstances of one of the joint owners and/or their children, such as a physical or mental health condition but not those of the bankrupt client.
3. Exceptional circumstances cannot be categorised or defined. The court must make a judgment after considering all the circumstances.
4. To be exceptional, the circumstances must be ’outside the normal melancholy consequences of debt and improvidence’ or ‘compelling reasons not found in the ordinary run of cases’.
5. It is not an exceptional circumstance that the spouse and children are faced with eviction because there are insufficient funds to provide them with a comparable home.
6. Creditors have an interest in an order for sale being made even if the whole of the net proceeds go towards the expenses of the bankruptcy and they receive nothing. This situation is not an exceptional circumstance.
The court can postpone the sale of the property to a future date which it considers ’fair and reasonable’ – eg, until the ill/disabled person has either died or chosen to leave the property or for a set period of time. ‘Exceptional circumstances’ should be supported by verifiable evidence.10See, for example, Martin-Sklan v White [2006] EWHC 3313 (ChD), Nicholls v Lan [2006] EWHC 1255 (ChD) (Adviser 122 abstracts) and Brittain v Haghighat [2009] EWHC 90 (ChD) (Adviser 132 abstracts). In Grant v Baker [2016] EWHC 1782 (Ch) (Adviser 177 abstracts), although the High Court agreed that the circumstances were exceptional, it allowed an appeal against an order for indefinite postponement on the basis that the underlying purpose of the bankruptcy legislation is to enable a bankrupt’s interest in a property to be realised and made available for distribution among her/his creditors. The court substituted the order for indefinite postponement by a postponement for 12 months. Beneficial interest
If the property is in the sole name of the bankrupt client, her/his (non-bankrupt) partner may be able to argue that s/he has a beneficial interest in the property – ie, s/he is entitled to a share of the proceeds of sale. If this can be established, the trustee cannot claim against the partner’s share of the property. So, if the property is sold, the partner is entitled to be paid the value of her/his share and does not have to make any payments to the trustee.11If the non-bankrupt partner makes payments after the date of the bankruptcy order, any payments of capital increases her/his share, but not any payments of interest or interest only: see Byford v Butler [2003] EWHC 1267 (ChD) (Adviser 104 abstracts). On the other hand, if the property is in the sole name of a non-bankrupt partner, the trustee may try to establish that the client has a beneficial interest. The trustee also investigates whether the property was put into the partner’s sole name in circumstances that could amount to a transaction at an undervalue (see here). Beneficial interest is generally assumed to be the same as the legal interest and so, unless the legal documentation of the property states otherwise, the starting position is that the client has a 50 per cent beneficial interest in jointly owned property (if there is one joint owner). If the property is solely owned by the client, it is assumed that s/he has a 100 per cent beneficial interest.
If a family home has been bought in the joint names of a cohabiting couple who are both responsible for any mortgage but there is no express declaration of their beneficial interests, they are both equally entitled to the beneficial interest unless there is evidence that they had a different intention at the time they acquired the home or they later intended that their respective shares would change.
The onus of proving that the parties intended their beneficial interests to be different from their legal interests is on the party seeking to establish this.
If the property is in the sole name of one of the partners, joint beneficial ownership is not presumed. The trustee looks at whether it was intended for the non-owner party to have any beneficial interest in the property and, if so, what it is. There must have been a common intention for one of them (the legal owner) to hold the property on behalf of the both of them. If there is no evidence of discussions leading to an actual written or verbal agreement, arrangement or understanding between the parties, a common intention to share the property can be inferred from their conduct.
The other partner may have acquired a beneficial interest either by:
•a court order; or
•a promise by the legal owner, either at the time the property was acquired, or subsequently, that s/he should have a beneficial interest and that in reliance on that promise s/he acted to her/his financial detriment – eg, by making substantial contributions to the household expenditure; or
•a common intention to hold the beneficial interests in the property in shares other than in the same proportion as the legal title and by materially altering her/his position – ie, acting to her/his detriment;12O’Neill v Holland [2020] EWCA Civ 1583 or •making a direct financial contribution to the purchase of the property – eg, by:
◦paying some or all of the deposit; or
◦making contributions to the mortgage repayments; or
◦paying for substantial improvements to the property.
Living in someone else’s house (even as a partner, civil partner or spouse), sharing household expenses and fulfilling ordinary domestic duties, such as looking after the property and bringing up children, do not of themselves entitle someone to a beneficial interest unless these can be seen as making an indirect contribution towards the mortgage repayments.
If the other partner has a beneficial interest, the value of her/his share depends on the value of her/his contributions, any agreement between the parties and any inferences that can be drawn from their conduct.13Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 (Adviser 123 abstracts); Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 (Adviser 149 housing abstracts) Even if the trustee is dealing with a jointly owned property, there may be a question about whether one of the parties has more than a 50 per cent share in it. If the property is held in joint names as joint tenants, this is considered to be conclusive evidence of an intention to hold the property in equal shares, unless one of the parties can demonstrate fraud or that there has been a mistake in the conveyance, or that there has been undue influence (see here) or a declaration of the beneficial interests. If Land Registry Form TR1 has been used (compulsory for all transfers since 1 April 2008), there is a specific declaration of trust tick box. The House of Lords has said that, if there is no declaration of trust, the presumption should be that properties in joint names are owned in equal shares rather than in proportion to the parties’ financial contributions to its purchase.14Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 (Adviser 123 abstracts) If a party seeks to argue otherwise, the onus is on her/him, and unequal contributions to the purchase are not sufficient on their own. Specialist advice should always be sought if you have grounds for believing that either the client or someone else may have a beneficial interest in a property which could be the subject of a claim by the trustee.15For a discussion on this issue, see M Allen, ‘Whose House is it Anyway’, Quarterly Account 8, IMA