Living with ex-girlfriend in home

[Ohiogal]

The two of you now own the home in what is called an “estate of cotenancy” with each of you as cotenants and owning an undivided one half interest.
And there are a number of legal consequences that attach to that cotenancy relationship.

Actually not necessarily. They could own it as JTWRS which means they each own 100% of the house. That is possible under Colorado law:

38-11-101
TITLE 38 PROPERTY - REAL AND PERSONAL
ARTICLE 11 Joint Tenancy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38-11-101. Personal property in joint tenancy - how created - vesting upon death.
(1) An estate in joint tenancy in personal property is created if, in the instrument evidencing ownership of such property, it is declared that the property is conveyed, transferred, bequeathed, or held in joint tenancy or as joint tenants, whether or not additional words are used relating to tenancy in common or survivorship. The abbreviation "JTWROS" and the phrase "as joint tenants with right of survivorship" or "in joint tenancy with right of survivorship" shall have the same meaning. Upon the death of any such joint tenants, the title to and ownership of such personal property passes immediately to and vests in the surviving joint tenant or tenants. Any grantor or transferor in any such instrument of conveyance or transfer may also be one of the grantees or transferees therein.

(2) Repealed.

(3) Any such instrument evidencing ownership executed prior to July 1, 1996, as amended in compliance with subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed to have created an estate in joint tenancy.

and this from Colorado law:

38-31-201
TITLE 38 PROPERTY - REAL AND PERSONAL
ARTICLE 31 Co-ownership of Real Property

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38-31-201. Tenancy by the entirety.
PART 2 TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY

(1) No conveyance of real property located in this state executed before or after July 1, 2006, shall create a tenancy by the entirety.

(2) A conveyance of real property located in this state executed before July 1, 2006, that purports to create a tenancy by the entirety shall be presumed to create a joint tenancy.

(3) A conveyance of real property located in this state executed on or after July 1, 2006, that purports to create a tenancy by the entirety shall create a joint tenancy.
Source: L. 2006: Entire article amended, p. 242, § 1, effective July 1.

One favorable consequence is that even though she didn’t sign the mortgage loan, as a cotenant she is responsible to you to contribute equally towards the payment of that loan. Not to the bank or lender, but to you personally.

That is incorrect. YOu cannot state that as fact. You don't know that she is a cotenant. You know nothing of the kind to speak like that.

And her responsibility to you to contribute to those mortgage payments and the taxes and insurance is not affected by whether or not she chooses to occupy the home. And that applies to you as well.

Also incorrect. The only way she owes him in a cotenancy situation per caselaw is if she ousted him from the property and took over sole possession and usage excluding him.
261 P.2d 509
HED v. PULLARA.
128 Colo. 244

We quote the following definition from volume 62 C.J., page 426:


"An ouster, in the law of tenancy in common, is the wrongful dispossession or exclusion by one tenant in common of his cotenant or cotenants from the common property of which they are entitled to possession."

In 62 C.J., page 430, we find the following:


"There is an ouster if the tenant's entry into exclusive possession of the premises is accompanied by a claim of right, or by acts tantamount thereto, even though with the mistaken belief in his separate ownership, and the adverse character of the possession is actually known to the other cotenants, or is so open and notorious in its hostility and exclusiveness as to put them on notice, or if it is followed by the tenant's receipt of rents, income, and profits, without accounting for any part thereof, or any demand upon him so to do, under circumstances evidencing his intention to claim sole ownership, or by payments of taxes for so long a period as to raise a presumption of ouster, or by sale, assuming to transfer the exclusive right to the property, or if the nature of the property is such as to make exclusive possession of it inconsistent with recognition of a cotenancy and the tenant is in exclusive possession under claim of right."

The following pertinent language is found in volume 14 American Jurisprudence at page 167, section 103:


"In accordance with recognized rules noticed in another article, it is well settled that as a general proposition the plaintiff carries the burden of proof. Thus, when one cotenant seeks to recover a share of the profits made by an associate who has been in exclusive possession of the common property, he must show the reasonable value of its use and occupation. If there has been an ouster, he must prove that fact unless the circumstances of the case or the allegations of his opponent's pleading are such as to make proof unnecessary. So, where the defendant in his answer claims the entire property in his own right as sole owner thereof, the plaintiff is under no obligation to show an ouster."

also see 729 P.2d 377
KEITH v. EL-KAREH

The parties' agreement makes no mention of rent; on the contrary, it expressly gave plaintiff possession without obligation for rent. Moreover, in the absence of a written agreement, tenants in common are not entitled to rent from each other unless the tenant seeking rent has been ousted from possession. See First National Bank v. Groussman, 29 Colo.App. 215, 483 P.2d 398, aff'd, 176 Colo. 566, 491 P.2d 1382 (1971). Unless an actual ouster is shown, the law presumes that the possession of one tenant in common is the possession of all. Hed v. Pullara, 128 Colo. 244, 261 P.2d 509 (1953).

HOWEVER since only he signed the mortgage and promissory note, only HE is liable for it.

latigo (Quoting from the post

“WE purchased the home TOGETHER putting BOTH OF OUR NAMES ON THE TITLE.”

If that didn’t create a tenancy in common, then please explain what estate in real property was created?! A joint tenancy? A joint tenancy with rights of survivorship? A tenancy by the entirety?

I'll tell you what it did create. With no other expression of the grantor's intent stated in the instrument of conveyance, it created a "tenancy in common".

THIS whole above sounds good but it is INCREDIBLY TOTALLY WRONG per Colorado law. The title matters. How it is worded matters. Caselaw states the following:

Finally, Moore's petition seeks, in the alternative, a partition of the property should it be determined that the 1998 conveyance and subsequent reconveyance back to Murphy destroyed the joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common. See Taylor, 92 P.3d at 965-66 (joint tenancy may be terminated by any action of a joint tenant inconsistent with the right of survivorship; tenancy in common results from such an action); see also 7 Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property § 50.02[3][a] (Michael Allan Wolf ed.2007) (tenancy in common is created when a joint tenant conveys his or her interest to an outsider). In the event a tenancy in common was thereby created, Moore owns an undivided one-half of the property, and has the right to seek a partition of the property. Such a partition may be accomplished by physically dividing the property, or, if that is not feasible, by selling the entire property and dividing the proceeds between the tenants. 7 Powell on Real Property § 50.07[1], [3][a]. Any such partition clearly affects the estate's interest in the property as a tenant in common, and would be "in connection with the settlement" of estate property. Hence, Moore's request for partition is subject to the probate court's jurisdiction. See § 13-9-103(1)(a), (1)(h), (3), (3)(c).

How the deed is worded matters. Before you decide to get rude and question my reading abilities, you might want to make sure you are above reproach with what you are posting. Because YOU are NOT necessarily correct here. Again I ask, HOW is the title worded. Because it is very likely it is joint tenancy. That matters.

I have caselaw and statute to back it up. What do you have Latigo?

[Ohiogal]

Oh and I repeat, if I were her I would not sign a renter's agreement. I would also make sure, if I were him, that she refinanced somehow before he moves out. Oh and choosing to move is NOT considered an ouster under the law.

By the way OP, how is the title/deed worded?

If she wishes to sign a renter's agreement that can help you (see the caselaw I posted) HOWEVER OP you will still be responsible for the mortgage.