right to first refusal

How is the "normal" right to first refusal / buy back value set on division of property?

  • Normally at RICS value

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Normally at "market value"

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Normally at best offer value

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Normally not set

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Normally set at something else... (please expand!)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters


New Member
i find myself in a situation where as a 1/3 joint owner of a property (tenants in common) we are dividing the property as sadly relations are not all as amicable as they might be, comm's are minimal currently.
Recently at the "Nth" hour in division proceedings the other two stakeholders, who are hanging onto the remainder of the property have expressed a wish to have a "right to first refusal" option on the portion of the property that i am to hold onto (as sole owner) in the division. Can anyone please tell me what the norm is in such a scenario?
Specifically; they are requesting that the right to first refusal has a caveat that states at any future buyback time the buy-back value should be set by an RICS valuer , is this a normal setup? (new to all this so sorry if this is a naive question).
It seems to me that right to first refusal is not uncommon, but i can't find reference to any examples of similar price setting at time of division out there. whilst i was happy with RICS value for division i don't see it as a particularly balanced caveat when applied to the buy back option - It doesn't sound terribly good as a prospect to me.
Any advice gratefully received.


Well-Known Member
I am not up to date with the latest legal arguments on this particular issue but surely there should have been provisions in your initial joint purchase agreement if one or more parties wanted to sell their share? We see this far too often, joint investors starting out as friends only to fall out further down the line causing major complications and potentially large additional expenses. Never mix business and pleasure.


New Member
This is a legacy with no agreement attached on hand over and the other two partners declined repeated calls for agreements to be drawn up by myself, so here we are. I share your view unsurprisingly!


May be it is time to look at a totally unconnected third party with legal and property experience and let them make an arms length decision. They will not be biased either way and there are many people who carry out that kind of work.