Transfer form TR1

[Champ]

Confusion over land registry transfer form TR1

Brief story. Due to separation and as agreed my wife to receive £xx,000
to enable her to purchase another property with her new partner I was
approved a re-mortgage to enable me to stay in the house and transfer it
from joint names to just mine.
When my wife took the form TR1 to here solicitor, filled in by my
solicitor, she was advised not to sign it as in section 9 the box was
marked "The transferor HAS received from the transferee for the property
the sum of £xx,000" and my wife then told me I was trying to "con" her
out of the money because of the word "has"

I am assured by my solicitor that the form was correctly filled in and
that the money was to be paid over on completion of my re-mortgage, the
TR1 being part of that process and this was the way it was done.

I was told by my solicitor at the outset that this is a straightforward
sequence of events handled on a regular basis by solicitors, so do not
understand why my wife's solicitor advised her not to sign the form.

Has one or other solicitor made a mistake, I or my wife been mislead, or
what should have been the correct procedure ?

Thanks for any help in advance

[GB]

Post by Champ
Confusion over land registry transfer form TR1
Brief story. Due to separation and as agreed my wife to receive £xx,000
to enable her to purchase another property with her new partner I was
approved a re-mortgage to enable me to stay in the house and transfer it
from joint names to just mine.
When my wife took the form TR1 to here solicitor, filled in by my
solicitor, she was advised not to sign it as in section 9 the box was
marked "The transferor HAS received from the transferee for the property
the sum of £xx,000" and my wife then told me I was trying to "con" her
out of the money because of the word "has"
I am assured by my solicitor that the form was correctly filled in and
that the money was to be paid over on completion of my re-mortgage, the
TR1 being part of that process and this was the way it was done.
I was told by my solicitor at the outset that this is a straightforward
sequence of events handled on a regular basis by solicitors, so do not
understand why my wife's solicitor advised her not to sign the form.
Has one or other solicitor made a mistake, I or my wife been mislead, or
what should have been the correct procedure ?
Thanks for any help in advance

In the absence of one of the lawyers here responding to you, I'll give my
2p-worth.

These documents are normally produced in that form, with someone signing a
receipt for cash that they have not actually had at the point of signature.
The forms are then returned to the solicitor, with a strong implication that
they will not be used until the transaction is completed. At the point the
forms are handed to the Land Registry, the word 'has' is correct. Otherwise,
the form would not get as far as the Land Registry.

In this case, the solicitors need to sort it out between themselves. Either
your solicitor needs to give an undertaking to deal fairly with the
document. (That may be either a formal or informal undertaking.) Or your
wife's solicitor needs to hang onto the form until the transaction is
completed, but with an undertaking to hand it over upon completion.

I think your wife's solicitor is being unnecessarily pedantic here, but it
should be possible to sort it out. If you have to, you can go back to the
divorce court to sort it out and bang heads together, and I have little
doubt that the judge will not be impressed, particularly with your wife's
solicitor. This may well be reflected in a costs order.

Geoff (not a lawyer, but I've probably signed over 100 TR1 forms during my
lifetime!)

[Biwah]

Post by GB
I think your wife's solicitor is being unnecessarily pedantic here

Indeed. Solicitors routinely guarantee among themselves to pay over
funds/deliver documents that they hold in trust, including the mortgage
proceeds. They certify something "has been done" when it has been undertaken
that it shall be done.

Your wife's solicitor has to be out of the loop. Perhaps s/he is a sole
practitioner, and leading banks won't work with such solicitors because of
the moral risk.

The alternative is the US system: a closing ceremony at which the title
insurance company representative (the firm that undertakes the searches and
insures good title, very rare in England since the land registry, etc. are
susceptible to suit; in some US jurisdictions (Virginia, for example) the
buyer's lawyer has a blanket E&O policy and does the searches) presides, or
at least dictates what happens. Both buyer and seller are there (or their
proxies) and their respective lawyers, and a lawyer from the mortgagee, etc.

I attend these from time to time in the USA. In England, for all the faults
of its conveyancing process, I can stay home and monitor the completion by
telephone.

[The Todal]

Post by GB

Post by Champ
Confusion over land registry transfer form TR1
Brief story. Due to separation and as agreed my wife to receive £xx,000
to enable her to purchase another property with her new partner I was
approved a re-mortgage to enable me to stay in the house and transfer it
from joint names to just mine.
When my wife took the form TR1 to here solicitor, filled in by my
solicitor, she was advised not to sign it as in section 9 the box was
marked "The transferor HAS received from the transferee for the property
the sum of £xx,000" and my wife then told me I was trying to "con" her
out of the money because of the word "has"
I am assured by my solicitor that the form was correctly filled in and
that the money was to be paid over on completion of my re-mortgage, the
TR1 being part of that process and this was the way it was done.
I was told by my solicitor at the outset that this is a straightforward
sequence of events handled on a regular basis by solicitors, so do not
understand why my wife's solicitor advised her not to sign the form.
Has one or other solicitor made a mistake, I or my wife been mislead, or
what should have been the correct procedure ?
Thanks for any help in advance

In the absence of one of the lawyers here responding to you, I'll give my
2p-worth.
These documents are normally produced in that form, with someone signing a
receipt for cash that they have not actually had at the point of signature.
The forms are then returned to the solicitor, with a strong implication that
they will not be used until the transaction is completed. At the point the
forms are handed to the Land Registry, the word 'has' is correct. Otherwise,
the form would not get as far as the Land Registry.
In this case, the solicitors need to sort it out between themselves. Either
your solicitor needs to give an undertaking to deal fairly with the
document. (That may be either a formal or informal undertaking.) Or your
wife's solicitor needs to hang onto the form until the transaction is
completed, but with an undertaking to hand it over upon completion.
I think your wife's solicitor is being unnecessarily pedantic here, but it
should be possible to sort it out. If you have to, you can go back to the
divorce court to sort it out and bang heads together, and I have little
doubt that the judge will not be impressed, particularly with your wife's
solicitor. This may well be reflected in a costs order.
Geoff (not a lawyer, but I've probably signed over 100 TR1 forms during my
lifetime!)

And you are absolutely right.

However the wife's solicitor may be worried about precisely what process
there will be whereby the document is handed over in exchange for the money.
Her interests have to be protected. Thewife has got it slightly wrong - it
is not that the husband is trying to con her, merely that a possibility
exists that she could be deprived of the money unless there are better
safeguards. It should be straightforward enough if the lawyers agree a
suitable arrangement.

[Champ]

Post by GB

Post by GB

Post by Champ
Confusion over land registry transfer form TR1
Brief story. Due to separation and as agreed my wife to receive £xx,000
to enable her to purchase another property with her new partner I was
approved a re-mortgage to enable me to stay in the house and transfer it
from joint names to just mine.
When my wife took the form TR1 to here solicitor, filled in by my
solicitor, she was advised not to sign it as in section 9 the box was
marked "The transferor HAS received from the transferee for the property
the sum of £xx,000" and my wife then told me I was trying to "con" her
out of the money because of the word "has"
I am assured by my solicitor that the form was correctly filled in and
that the money was to be paid over on completion of my

re-mortgage, the

Post by GB

Post by GB

Post by Champ
TR1 being part of that process and this was the way it was done.
I was told by my solicitor at the outset that this is a

straightforward

Post by GB

Post by GB

Post by Champ
sequence of events handled on a regular basis by solicitors, so do not
understand why my wife's solicitor advised her not to sign the form.
Has one or other solicitor made a mistake, I or my wife been mislead, or
what should have been the correct procedure ?
Thanks for any help in advance

In the absence of one of the lawyers here responding to you, I'll give my
2p-worth.
These documents are normally produced in that form, with someone signing a
receipt for cash that they have not actually had at the point of

signature.

Post by GB
The forms are then returned to the solicitor, with a strong

implication

Post by GB
that

Post by GB
they will not be used until the transaction is completed. At the point the
forms are handed to the Land Registry, the word 'has' is correct.

Otherwise,

Post by GB
the form would not get as far as the Land Registry.
In this case, the solicitors need to sort it out between themselves.

Either

Post by GB
your solicitor needs to give an undertaking to deal fairly with the
document. (That may be either a formal or informal undertaking.) Or your
wife's solicitor needs to hang onto the form until the transaction is
completed, but with an undertaking to hand it over upon completion.
I think your wife's solicitor is being unnecessarily pedantic here, but it
should be possible to sort it out. If you have to, you can go back to the
divorce court to sort it out and bang heads together, and I have little
doubt that the judge will not be impressed, particularly with your wife's
solicitor. This may well be reflected in a costs order.
Geoff (not a lawyer, but I've probably signed over 100 TR1 forms during my
lifetime!)

And you are absolutely right.
However the wife's solicitor may be worried about precisely what process
there will be whereby the document is handed over in exchange for the money.
Her interests have to be protected. Thewife has got it slightly wrong - it
is not that the husband is trying to con her, merely that a

possibility

Post by GB
exists that she could be deprived of the money unless there are better
safeguards. It should be straightforward enough if the lawyers agree a
suitable arrangement.

Thank you for your replies, they have been most helpful. I believe my
wife is seeing her solicitor on Monday but is still, I believe, not
willing to complete the deal.
One point I omitted from my original post was that an original TR1
prepared by MY solicitor, unknown to me, was ticked "The transfer is not
for money or anything of monetary value" by mistake (said it was a word
processor error !!). No wonder at this point my wife thought I was
trying to cheat her. The 2nd TR1 was then drawn up for £xx,000.
I now believe my re-mortgage will fall through, costing me a lot of
money in fees etc, and my wife will scrap our original agreement which
was slightly to my advantage, and go for a 50-50 which would mean I
would probably have to sell the property to meet this.
JM

[GB]

Post by Champ
Thank you for your replies, they have been most helpful. I believe my
wife is seeing her solicitor on Monday but is still, I believe, not
willing to complete the deal.

Well, if she has changed her mind, no wonder she is quibbling about the
form. It gives her some sort of excuse.