Separation or divorce can be emotionally taxing, and financial matters only intensify these challenges. When a relationship ends, jointly owned assets often become a focal point of conflict, and homes typically represent the most significant shared investment. One common problem occurs when both parties own a property together but one refuses to sell. This disagreement can lead to a complex legal and emotional impasse.

Jointly owned properties are usually acquired under two legal structures—joint tenancy or tenancy in common—and while these terms may seem technical, they significantly affect the resolution of ownership disputes post-breakup. When one party resists selling, the situation quickly becomes difficult, but it’s important to understand your rights, legal remedies, and the pathways to a fair outcome.

The Legal Framework of Joint Property Ownership in the UK

Property law in the UK governs how disputes over jointly owned property are settled. If you and your former partner own a property together, you likely fall under one of the following categories:

– Joint tenants: Both parties have equal rights to the whole property, and when one dies, their share automatically passes to the other.

– Tenants in common: Each individual owns a specific share of the property, which may or may not be equal, and these shares can be passed on to others upon death.

Understanding how your property is legally held informs the strategies you can adopt. Joint tenancy is often used for married couples or civil partners, whereas tenancy in common tends to be preferred by those wanting clearer division of ownership shares.

In either case, when a breakup happens and one party refuses to sell, the situation becomes less about the nature of ownership and more about enforcing your rights under land law.

Why One Party Might Refuse to Sell

There are various reasons why an individual might oppose selling a jointly owned property. Emotional attachment to the home, especially if children are involved, often plays a major role. The home may represent stability at a time when everything else feels uncertain.

Another possible cause is financial. One party may believe the current market conditions are unfavourable and prefer to hold on until the value appreciates. Alternatively, if one person contributed more financially to the purchase or maintenance of the property, they may feel entitled to a greater share or control over the final decision.

Sometimes, resistance to selling stems from pure spite or unresolved emotional grievances. Hard though it is, such behaviour is not uncommon. When one partner uses the property as leverage or retaliation, it can escalate what could have been a straightforward financial separation into a prolonged legal dispute.

First Steps: Negotiation and Mediation

If you are facing this kind of deadlock, your initial course of action should be to attempt resolution through communication. Consider hiring a mediator—an impartial third party trained to help disputing parties reach mutually agreeable solutions. This non-adversarial approach is far less costly and time-consuming than legal proceedings, and often helps de-escalate conflict.

Mediation is particularly suitable for ex-partners who are willing to cooperate to some degree. An experienced mediator can help clarify legal rights, explore alternative solutions, and encourage compromise. For example, one party might buy out the other’s share, or they might agree to keep the property temporarily before selling at a later agreed-upon date.

If mediation fails or is not an option due to a lack of communication, a legal route becomes necessary.

Applying to the Court for an Order of Sale

When voluntary agreement cannot be reached, you have the right to take legal action under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA). This legislation allows individuals with a beneficial interest in a property—the right to benefit from its sale or value—to apply to the court to enforce their rights.

A TOLATA claim can lead to a court-ordered sale of the property. To succeed, you must demonstrate a legal interest in the property. Most commonly, such interest stems from being on the title deeds or having contributed to its purchase or upkeep.

During the proceedings, the court will consider various factors before deciding whether to grant an order for sale. These include:

– The intentions of the owners when the property was acquired
– The purpose for which the property is held
– The welfare of any children living at the property
– The interests of any creditors involved

It should be noted that if there are children residing in the property, especially minors, the court might delay an order for sale to ensure their stability and well-being. This does not prevent sale indefinitely but may impose a temporary hold.

Dealing with Mortgages and Shared Financial Responsibilities

If a mortgage is still outstanding, both parties remain jointly and severally liable for the debt, regardless of who currently lives in the property or contributes to payments. This means that if payments are missed, the lender can pursue either or both parties for the full amount.

This obligation can become particularly burdensome if the person living in the home fails to keep up with payments, threatening both parties’ credit ratings. Meanwhile, the person not living in the property might feel even more motivated to force a sale to protect their financial standing.

An outcome of legal proceedings may include a restructuring of mortgage responsibilities or clarification of each party’s contributions to the mortgage balance—information that will later inform the financial settlement.

Possibility of a Buyout Solution

If selling the property outright feels too drastic or disruptive, a common alternative is for one party to buy the other out. This involves valuing the home—typically through an independent surveyor—and negotiating a fair price for the exiting party’s share.

A buyout usually requires refinancing the mortgage in the name of the sole remaining owner, which is only possible if they meet the lender’s eligibility criteria, including income and creditworthiness. If successfully arranged, the exiting party receives their share and relinquishes all future claims or obligations tied to the home.

While this is an ideal solution in many instances, practical limitations—especially financial barriers—can affect whether it’s a viable option.

The Importance of a Declaration of Trust

One of the biggest challenges in determining how to proceed with a jointly owned property is establishing who owns what. If the former couple never created a legally binding document that details their respective contributions to the purchase, such as a declaration of trust, disputes abound.

A declaration of trust sets out the precise ownership shares and expectations around how profits (or losses) from the sale are to be divided. In the absence of this document, the court will rely on other evidence to establish the parties’ intentions and claims—bank statements, email correspondence, or even witness testimony.

Creating a declaration of trust at the time of purchase can save significant hassle down the line. Unfortunately, hindsight only helps so much when a dispute is underway.

Impact of Marriage or Civil Partnership on Property Rights

For unmarried couples, TOLATA remains the primary tool for resolving jointly owned property disputes. Things differ somewhat for married couples or those in a civil partnership.

In the case of divorce or dissolution, the division of assets, including property, is handled under family law, specifically the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The courts have much wider discretion in marital cases, considering a broader spectrum of factors such as income, length of marriage, childcare obligations, and future needs.

If one partner refuses to sell a jointly owned matrimonial property, the court can still order its sale as part of the divorce proceedings. Alternatively, one partner may be allowed to stay in the home temporarily, especially if it is deemed necessary to support the care of children.

Therefore, the legal pathway to resolving joint property disputes largely depends on your marital status and the nature of your ownership rights.

Living in the Property Post-Separation

In some instances, one party continues to live in the jointly owned property after the breakup. While this arrangement can work for a while—especially if mediated—it may eventually lead to tensions about financial fairness.

Does the person living in the property pay rent to the other? Should they cover all maintenance costs? The answers depend on mutual agreement, or in the absence of agreement, what the courts deem reasonable.

One complication is the concept of “occupation rent.” If an ex-partner continues to live in and benefit from the property, the non-resident joint owner might claim compensation, arguing they’re being denied use of their share. However, courts only grant occupation rent in specific circumstances, such as if the non-resident owner is excluded against their wishes.

Emotional and Practical Considerations

The sale of a shared home often reflects more than monetary value; it can symbolise the end of a significant chapter in one’s life. Sentimental attachment, fear of upheaval, and worries about children can all shape how individuals approach these challenging decisions.

However, holding onto shared property solely due to unresolved emotional issues often leads to prolonged distress. It’s vital to understand that while emotions are valid, legal and financial decisions require a degree of detachment to avoid further harm.

Working with professionals—solicitors, mediators, financial advisors—can bring clarity to complex situations and help all involved move forward with greater confidence.

Conclusion: Seeking Resolution and Closure

Property disputes after a breakup are challenging but not insurmountable. If your former partner is resisting the sale of a jointly owned home, there are structured paths for resolution, both legal and negotiated. It’s important to remain informed, pragmatic, and proactive throughout the process.

Understanding your rights under property and family law, seeking professional advice early, and being open to mediation or compromise can all significantly improve your chances of a fair and timely outcome. Moving on from a relationship is hard enough—your home’s future should not make it harder.

The key is regaining control, asserting your rights, and making informed decisions that reflect both your current reality and your future aspirations.