Forcing the Sale of Co-Owned Property in Ireland: A Guide to Section 31 Applications
Co-owning property often begins with shared plans and good intentions. A couple may buy a home together, siblings inherit a family property, or friends invest in property with a view to future returns. When good faith agreements break down it is important to get legal advice from a Property Law Solicitor.
It is especially important that you get legal advice from a solicitor who has expertise in this field of Property Law
Book a Consultation with Property Law Solicitor Michael Burns on +353-1-567 7343
or use the contact form here
At the outset, there is usually trust, cooperation, and a shared sense of purpose.
However, circumstances can change, Relationships break down, financial pressures arise, or priorities shift, or one owner simply wants to move on. What once worked smoothly can become difficult, particularly where one person wants to sell and the other does not.
In these situations, co-ownership can reach a standstill. One party may want to realise their share of the property, while the other refuses to engage, delays decisions, or continues to occupy the property without contributing fairly to the mortgage, repairs, insurance, tax, management charges, or other outgoings.
It is not uncommon for former partner remains living in the property while the other is still tied to the mortgage. Similarly, siblings who inherit a family home may disagree about whether the property should be sold, rented, retained, or bought out by one of them. Because major decisions, such as selling. Because major decisions such as selling the property usually require agreement, the property can become effectively frozen.
This can leave one co-owner feeling trapped: unable to access their capital, unable to move on, and still exposed to ongoing financial obligations.
Breaking the Deadlock
There is a legal route for dealing with this kind of deadlock. Under section 31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, a person with an estate or interest in co-owned land may apply to court for an order concerning that land. Depending on the circumstances, the court may order a sale, partition, accounting adjustments between the co-owners, or another order that is just and equitable.
The key point is that a co-owner is not always forced to remain indefinitely tied to a property where agreement has broken down. The court has power to intervene where necessary, but the outcome will depend on the facts of the case, the ownership structure, the financial history, occupation of the property and any family-home or hardship issues that arise.
When Can You Force a Sale of Property in Ireland?
The Breakdown of the Relationship
A court-ordered sale may become necessary where the relationship between co-owners has broken down to the point where cooperation is no longer possible.
This commonly happens after the end of a relationship between unmarried partners, where one party wants to move on but the other remains in the property. It can also arise where siblings inherit a family home but cannot agree whether it should be sold, retained, rented or bought out by one of them.
Similar disputes can arise between friends, business partners, or investors where expectations have changed, or the original purpose of the investment no longer works. In these situations, co-ownership can become unworkable and a practical solution may be needed to bring the deadlock to an end.
Lack of Consent
The core problem is often simple: one co-owner wants to sell, and the other refuses. Because a sale will usually require the agreement of all co-owners, one person can effectively block progress by refusing to consent, delaying decisions, or failing to engage with realistic proposals.
This can leave the other co-owner unable to access their share of the property while still being tied to mortgage repayments, insurance, maintenance costs, Local Property Tax, management charges, or other financial obligations. In some cases, one party may promise to buy out the other but fail to follow through, leaving the situation unresolved for months or even years.
A co-owner is not necessarily stuck simply because the other owner refuses to sell. Under section 31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, a person with an estate or interest in co-owned land may apply to court for an order concerning that land. Depending on the circumstances, that may include an order for sale and distribution of the proceeds.
Financial and Practical Pressure
In many cases, the difficulty is not just disagreement. It is the ongoing financial and practical burden of being tied to a property that cannot be sold, used or managed properly.
One co-owner may remain liable for a mortgage even though they no longer live in the property. Another may be paying insurance, repairs, maintenance, tax, or management charges without receiving any real benefit. In other cases, the property may sit empty, underused, or deteriorating while its value remains locked away.
The longer the standstill continues, the greater the financial pressure can become. A section 31 application provides a legal mechanism for asking the court to intervene where co-owners cannot reach agreement themselves. The court can then consider what outcome is fair and workable, including whether the property should be sold, whether financial adjustments should be made, and how the proceeds should be dealt with.
The Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009
Section 31: The Legal Basis for Court-Ordered Sales
The legal framework for resolving disputes between co-owners is found in the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, and in particular, Section 31 of that Act.
Section 31 replaced the older partition procedure and introduced a modern statutory mechanism for dealing with disputes involving co-owned land. It gives the court broad powers to make orders where co-owners, or others with a relevant interest in the property, cannot agree on what should happen.
Under section 31, a person with an estate or interest in co-owned land may apply to court for an order. The court is not limited to ordering a sale. Depending on the circumstances, it may make a range of orders, including an order for partition, an order for sale and distribution of the proceeds, accounting adjustments between the parties, or another order relating to the land that the court considers just and equitable.
In practice, this means that where co-ownership has broken down and agreement cannot be reached, the court can be asked to step in. In many cases, the practical solution will be an order for sale. However, sale is not automatic. The court will consider the circumstances of the case before deciding what order, if any, should be made.
Who Has “Standing” to Apply?
Section 31 is not limited to registered legal owners.
The legislation allows a person with an estate or interest in the property can bring an application. This may includes:
- Co-owners, whether joint tenants or tenants in common;
- a person with a beneficial or equitable interest in the property;
- a mortgage lenders and other secured creditor;
- a judgment mortgagee; or
- a trustee.
This means that section 31 can apply not only to disputes between co-owners, but also to cases involving lenders, judgment creditors, trustees, or others with a recognised legal or financial interest in the property.
For most private co-ownership disputes, the applicant will usually be one of the co-owners. However, the wording of section 31 is deliberately broad enough to allow other interested parties to seek court intervention where appropriate.
Types of Orders the Court Can Make
Order for Sale and Distribution of Proceeds
One of the main orders available under section 31 is an order for sale.
In practical terms, this means the court can direct that the property be sold and that the proceeds are distributed between the parties as the court considers appropriate. Section 31(2)(c) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 expressly allows the court to make “an order for sale of the land and distribution of the proceeds of sale as the court directs”.
This type of order is often sought where the relationship between the co-owners has broken down and there is no realistic prospect of agreement. A sale can provide a clean resolution by allowing the parties to realise their respective interests and bring the co-ownership to an end.
However, an order for sale is not automatic. The court retains discretion and will consider the circumstances of the case before deciding whether sale is the appropriate outcome.
Order for Partition
The court also has power to order partition, meaning that the land is divided between the co-owners. Section 31(2)(a) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 includes “an order for partition of the land amongst the co-owners” as one of the orders available to the court.
In practice, partition is often less suitable for ordinary residential property. A typical house, apartment, semi-detached property, or terraced property cannot usually be divided into separate, independently usable parts. Partition is more likely to be relevant where the property consists of land, a larger site, or a property capable of practical division.
It is also important to note that the old equitable jurisdiction to order partition has been abolished. Section 31(6) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 provides that the equitable jurisdiction of the court to make an order for partition of co-owned land, whether at law or in equity, is abolished.
Accounting Adjustments
One of the most important features of section 31 is the court’s power to make accounting adjustments between co-owners. In many cases, this is where the real financial outcome is decided.
Accounting adjustments allow the court to take account of how the property has actually been used, occupied, paid for, and maintained. Section 31(2)(d) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 allows the court to make “an order directing that accounting adjustments be made as between the co-owners”.
These adjustments can include:
- occupation rent payable by a co-owner who has occupied the property to the exclusion of another co-owner;
- compensation for a co-owner who has incurred disproportionate expenditure on the property, including repairs or improvements;
- contributions where one co-owner has made disproportionate payments for charges, rates, rents, taxes, or other outgoings;
- redistribution of rents and profits received by one co-owner disproportionately to their interest in the property; and
- any other adjustment necessary to achieve fairness between the co-owners.
These categories are set out in section 31(4)(b) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, which defines “accounting adjustments” to include occupation rent, compensation for disproportionate expenditure, contributions for disproportionate payments, redistribution of rents and profits, and any other adjustment necessary to achieve fairness between the co-owners.
This means that even where the court orders a sale, the final division of the proceeds may not be a simple 50/50 split. The court can take account of matters such as who paid the mortgage, who paid for repairs, who received rent, who lived in the property, and whether one party carried more than their fair share of the financial burden.
How the Court Uses These Powers
The court is not limited to a single outcome. It can combine orders, for example, ordering a sale and making accounting adjustments, to reach a result that is fair in all the circumstances.
This flexibility is what allows Section 31 to resolve even complex disputes and bring a co-ownership standstill to an end.
How the Court Exercises Its Discretion
Balancing the Equities
The court does not automatically order a sale simply because one co-owner applies for it.
Instead, it considers what is “just and equitable” in the circumstances of the case. Section 31(2)(f) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 allows the court to make another order relating to the land where that appears just and equitable, and section 31(3) confirms that the court may impose conditions, dismiss the application, or combine orders.
This may involve considering:
- the nature of the relationship between the co-owners;
- whether the property can realistically continue to be shared;
- the financial contributions made by each party;
- whether accounting adjustments are required;
- the interests of any secured creditor or judgment mortgagee; and
- the practical consequences of ordering, postponing, or refusing a sale.
In other words, the court will not simply rubber-stamp an application. It will assess whether a sale, partition, accounting adjustment, conditional order, or some other order is the fairest and most workable solution. The court will assess whether a sale, partition, accounting adjustment, conditional order, or some other order is the fairest and most workable solution in the circumstances.
The Family Home Protection Act 1976
Additional considerations arise where the property is a family home, particularly where the parties are married or where one spouse is not involved in the debt or transaction that has led to the application.
Under section 3(1) of the Family Home Protection Act 1976, a purported conveyance of the family home without the prior written consent of the other spouse is void, and the Supreme Court has described the 1976 Act as a remedial statute designed to protect the non-owning spouse in the family home.
This does not mean that a family home can never be sold by court order. However, where a proposed sale would affect the rights of a spouse or other family-home interests, additional legal considerations may arise. Those interests may influence whether the court orders, postpones or refuses a sale, or whether the matter should instead be addressed through appropriate family law proceedings.
Section 31(5) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 also makes clear that section 31 does not affect the court’s jurisdiction under the Family Home Protection Act 1976 or the family law legislation referred to therein. Where the property is a family home, especially in a marriage breakdown, the issue may need to be considered alongside family law remedies rather than as a straightforward co-ownership sale application.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be forced to sell my house if I don’t want to?
Yes, potentially.
If the property is co-owned and the owners cannot agree, one co-owner may apply to court under section 31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 for an order for sale. However, the court does not automatically order a sale. It considers what is fair, practical and just in the circumstances.
How long does a Section 31 application take?
There is no fixed timeframe.
The length of a section 31 application depends on factors such as whether the application is contested, whether valuation evidence is needed, whether the parties dispute financial contributions, and whether family-home or spouse-related issues arise.
Can I claim back the mortgage payments I made alone?
Potentially, yes.
If one co-owner has paid more than their fair share of the mortgage or other property-related costs, they may ask the court to take this into account when dividing the proceeds of sale. This is often discussed as part of “equitable accounting” or accounting adjustments between co-owners.
What happens to the sale proceeds if the court orders a sale?
If the court orders a sale, it can also decide how the proceeds should be divided. The division may reflect the parties’ ownership shares, but the court may also consider whether adjustments should be made for mortgage payments, repairs, improvements, occupation of the property, rent received, or other financial contributions.
What happens if there is a mortgage on the property?
If the property is mortgaged, the mortgage will usually be paid off from the sale proceeds before the owners receive anything.
After the mortgage, legal costs, estate agent fees and other sale expenses are discharged, the remaining equity can be divided between the co-owners.
If one owner has paid more than their fair share of the mortgage, they may be able to ask the court to reflect that through an accounting adjustment when the proceeds are divided.
Can I buy out the other owner instead of selling?
Yes, in many cases a buyout may be possible if both parties can agree on the property value and the mortgage position.