Property joint ventures, while offering several advantages, can be fraught with potential pitfalls. The case of Baldudak v Matteo provides a clear illustration of the complexities and challenges that can arise, particularly concerning ownership and financial contributions in joint ventures.
A property was jointly owned by Matteo and Baldudak as individuals. Baldudak argued that since he had contributed the entire price for the property he was entitled to be sole owner whereas Matteo argued it was the intention of the joint venture that the property was owned equally by them in 50:50 shares.
The argument that Baldudak made that the £750,000 payment was transferred for the purpose of setting up a separate business venture, which did not proceed and therefore the funds belonged to him solely, was dismissed by the Court as there was no clear language that this was the intention and the money was paid into the company for the general purpose of a joint venture.
The subsequent argument made by Baldudak was that since he paid the entire price, the property was held on a resulting trust by the legal owners for Baldudak only. The general position on a resulting trust is that where one party contributes the entire price there is a presumption that he would be the sole owner. The Judge said this was not the case here as there was the intention of a joint venture between the parties.
The final argument was that Matteo had, in other proceedings, accepted that the Baldudak was the sole owner of the property, and the Judge agreed that he could not now change his position.
Lessons and Precautions for Property Joint Ventures
Clear and Precise Documentation:
Any funds lent for a specific purpose within a joint venture should be clearly documented in writing to avoid being considered general joint venture funds.
Explicitly state in writing if a property is to be beneficially owned by both parties, even if one party contributes the entire purchase price.
Resulting Trusts:
– Understand that the presumption of a resulting trust applies when one party contributes to the purchase price. However, clear evidence can rebut this presumption, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and agreements.
Consistency in Statements:
Be aware that statements and admissions made in previous legal proceedings can be binding in future disputes. Consistency and caution in communications during legal processes are crucial.
If you are considering entering into a joint property venture, please take care to detail it properly. For expert advice on joint ventures contact Nick Attwell on 01473 229242 or email Nick at [email protected].
Our blogs and articles are correct at the time of writing.
These have been created for marketing purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice.
