VIC who can sell the property

[johnw.drysdale]

Three siblings own a property in equal shares , two wish to sell and the third does not, does majority rule .

 

[Clancy]

Without a contract specifically spelling things out, i would assume a sale is subject to veto by any single party to the property?

 

[Rod]

Any of the 3 people can force a sale. ie one person can force a sale of the property. Need to apply for an order through VCAT if agreement cannot be obtained.

 

[Clancy]

Any of the 3 people can force a sale. ie one person can force a sale of the property. Need to apply for an order through VCAT if agreement cannot be obtained.

Surprising, but Rod seems to be correct. Some random things (i saw when i googled this) that may prevent the sale, as under;

1. One of the co-owners holds the property as a trustee as evidenced by a written trust document dealing with the entitlement to the property. For instance, a father may remarry and hold property on trust for his children.
   
   
2. There is a contract or agreement in place between the co-owners that deals with how the property is to be sold. For instance, there may be an agreement giving a co-owner a first right of refusal, or requiring a certain period of time, i.e. 12 months to pass before the property can be sold (in order to allow time to raise sufficient finance to buy out the other party’s share).
   
   
3. An estoppel argument that one co-owner has exhausted their share in the property and no longer has any right to claim to have an interest in the property. That is, a co-owner draws a large amount of money out against the property for their own benefit and then does not repay that money.
   
   
4. The equity of exoneration. For instance, a co-owner (husband/partner) gives a second mortgage against the property to start a new business; the other co-owners have no interest in or benefit from the business. The business then fails, and he is declared a bankrupt. The husband’s bankruptcy trustee may seek to sell the house to pay the husband’s debt. The remaining owners may be able to argue that only the husband should bear the burden of the debt, and they should be exonerated from it (this is not restricted to husband and wife scenarios).