Living with ex-girlfriend in home

[tynman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Colorado

My ex-girlfriend and I moved into a home together. We purchased the home together putting both of our names on the title. Her name is not on the mortgage loan. We've been living together for less than six months. Our relationship has changed and I would like to sell my loan to her and move. (Pardon my lack of mortgage lingo please). What she wants to do is make a renters agreement. She will pay me the complete monthly mortgage payment if I agree to move out of the home. What I would like to know is, what are the legalities if I sign a rent agreement with her? Should I make positive that her name is the only one on the loan before I move out?

Please help me!

[IsabellaSoriano]

Originally Posted by tynman

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Colorado

My ex-girlfriend and I moved into a home together. We purchased the home together putting both of our names on the title. Her name is not on the mortgage loan. We've been living together for less than six months. Our relationship has changed and I would like to sell my loan to her and move. (Pardon my lack of mortgage lingo please). What she wants to do is make a renters agreement. She will pay me the complete monthly mortgage payment if I agree to move out of the home. What I would like to know is, what are the legalities if I sign a rent agreement with her? Should I make positive that her name is the only one on the loan before I move out?

Please help me!

i would. she should re-finance so the loan is in her name only. wait for other replies.

[tynman]

Thanks for the speedy reply! I suppose I should mention that she runs a business out of the home. Her name wasn't put on the mortgage loan because she has not been in business for herself more than 2 years. She would be able to re-finance in March 2010. It's a long way off and it won't be an easy wait. Are there any alternatives to putting her name on the loan? As in, having a parent(s) co-sign on the loan with her?

[BlondiePB]

Originally Posted by IsabellaSoriano

i would. she should re-finance so the loan is in her name only. wait for other replies.

Would or wouldn't?


If wouldn't, I agree.

[IsabellaSoriano]

Originally Posted by tynman

Thanks for the speedy reply! I suppose I should mention that she runs a business out of the home. Her name wasn't put on the mortgage loan because she has not been in business for herself more than 2 years. She would be able to re-finance in March 2010. It's a long way off and it won't be an easy wait. Are there any alternatives to putting her name on the loan? As in, having a parent(s) co-sign on the loan with her?

it's possible.

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by tynman

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Colorado

My ex-girlfriend and I moved into a home together. We purchased the home together putting both of our names on the title. Her name is not on the mortgage loan. We've been living together for less than six months. Our relationship has changed and I would like to sell my loan to her and move. (Pardon my lack of mortgage lingo please). What she wants to do is make a renters agreement. She will pay me the complete monthly mortgage payment if I agree to move out of the home. What I would like to know is, what are the legalities if I sign a rent agreement with her? Should I make positive that her name is the only one on the loan before I move out?

Please help me!

I wouldn't sign a renters agreement. She is NOT a renter. She is an OWNER of the house. You are the one however with full responsibility of the mortgage. She should refinance before you move out of your house. When she refinances, you quit claim your portion of the home to her. She can refinance however she wants to do so.

[tynman]

Thanks for your advice all!

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by tynman

Thanks for your advice all!

I need to point out something that has been overlooked in the advice given.

Unfortunately, in order to do a refinance there normally has to be some decent equity in the home. Unless things have changed fairly recently that means 20% equity. So not only does she have the issue of not being in business long enough quite yet, there is also the issue of equity in the home unless a substantial down payment was made and/or the market recovers fairly quickly and the home appreciates.

It would normally be quite difficult to refinance a home after only six months ownership.

You might sit down with a real estate attorney to see if there is a way to structure you selling your 50% of the home to her, with you holding a secondary note with a balloon payment due (to pay off the mortgage) after a certain amount of time. If something like that were possible, it would protect your interests as well as making her responsible to cover the mortgage.

[latigo]

Pardon me for saying so but it was most foolish of you to purchase the home jointly.

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.

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.

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.

One of the downsides is that the jointly owned property cannot be sold or leased without the written consent of all the cotenants. Nor can one cotenant force another cotenant to purchase his or her interest or sell that partial interest.

And not being married no relief is available in the family courts.

You really need to consult with an attorney qualified in real estate law, because you’ve unwarily put yourself in a heck of fix. Including the unlikelihood of obtaining other mortgage financing as long as this one is outstanding.

If she is willing to take full and exclusive possession, and provided she is unwilling or can’t refinance and get your name off the mortgage debt ….

In my opinion the best you could do would have the attorney draw up an agreement whereby you grant her the exclusive right to possess the home in exchange for her agreement to assume the current mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and all future charges related to the property and hold you harmless from further liability.

But under no circumstances would I have you quitclaim your one half interest in the home as long as the mortgage is outstanding. Because in doing so you would lose your leverage should she default on her assumption agreement.

The leverage being that as a cotenant you could bring pressure on her to sell the home or face a partition action in which the court would order the property sold.

As I say you’ve got yourself in a fine mess. But it is better to deal with it now than later, because it ain’t going to get any better. So see the lawyer.

Sax

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by latigo

Pardon me for saying so but it was most foolish of you to purchase the home jointly.

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.

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.

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.

One of the downsides is that the jointly owned property cannot be sold or leased without the written consent of all the cotenants. Nor can one cotenant force another cotenant to purchase his or her interest or sell that partial interest.

And not being married no relief is available in the family courts.

You really need to consult with an attorney qualified in real estate law, because you’ve unwarily put yourself in a heck of fix. Including the unlikelihood of obtaining other mortgage financing as long as this one is outstanding.

If she is willing to take full and exclusive possession, and provided she is unwilling or can’t refinance and get your name off the mortgage debt ….

In my opinion the best you could do would have the attorney draw up an agreement whereby you grant her the exclusive right to possess the home in exchange for her agreement to assume the current mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and all future charges related to the property and hold you harmless from further liability.

But under no circumstances would I have you quitclaim your one half interest in the home as long as the mortgage is outstanding. Because in doing so you would lose your leverage should she default on her assumption agreement.

The leverage being that as a cotenant you could bring pressure on her to sell the home or face a partition action in which the court would order the property sold.

As I say you’ve got yourself in a fine mess. But it is better to deal with it now than later, because it ain’t going to get any better. So see the lawyer.

Sax

What are you basing that on? Do you know how the title reads? I do agree that they should see an attorney. But where are you getting your information about cotenancy and she owes HIM anything?

[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".

And sans any evidence in the deed of the intent to convey disproportionate interests, each of the grantees took title in equal, undivided ownership. AS COTENANTS!

Then read something about the laws pertaining to a "tenancy in common".

However, get you started in your research on this particular element of those laws with this from “CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM” - Tenancy in Common – Part 6 Contribution – Section 83 page 311:

“A tenant in common who purchases or discharges an outstanding title or encumbrance for the benefit of the common estate is, in the absence of any agreement or understanding to the contrary, entitled to contribution from the other cotenants in proportion to their respective shares of the common held property. “

And supra Section 89 page 315:

“The obligation to pay the taxes assessed against the property is imposed on ALL of the tenants in common.”

And supra Section 90 page 316:

“EACH tenant in common is responsible for his or her respective share of all the necessary expenses incurred in maintaining and preserving the common property.”
__________________

[Proserpina]

While I know that none of us are perfect, I can't for the life of me fathom exactly why you were so incredibly rude to a much-respected Ohio attorney.

You could have made your point with much less vitriol.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Dogmatique

While I know that none of us are perfect, I can't for the life of me fathom exactly why you were so incredibly rude to a much-respected Ohio attorney.

You could have made your point with much less vitriol.

OG is a highly skilled family law attorney...which perhaps the poster did not know. However its clear that the poster is highly skilled in real estate law, which is the only thing that is relevant here because the parties are not married.

OG would not necessarily be highly skilled in real estate law.

[Proserpina]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

OG is a highly skilled family law attorney...which perhaps the poster did not know. However its clear that the poster is highly skilled in real estate law, which is the only thing that is relevant here because the parties are not married.

OG would not necessarily be highly skilled in real estate law.

Yep, I know (I've read most of latigo's posts and find them to be informative and detailed and more often than not the posts are supported by either case law or links to case law).

It was the delivery, really. Just seemed a little too venomous.

(completely and utterly off topic: I just scored "venomous" on a triple word score! )

Apologies for the hijack, btw!

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

OG is a highly skilled family law attorney...which perhaps the poster did not know. However its clear that the poster is highly skilled in real estate law, which is the only thing that is relevant here because the parties are not married.

OG would not necessarily be highly skilled in real estate law.

And quite frankly LAtigo was being rude. I asked a question as to how he came to his conclusion:

What are you basing that on? Do you know how the title reads? I do agree that they should see an attorney. But where are you getting your information about cotenancy and she owes HIM anything?

He then went on about my reading skills. Highly skilled? Oh okay. We know NOTHING about latigo's background. But nice assumption. All I know is Latigo was rude and arrogant.