Two names on deed, what are the options?

[applegirl129]

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

A relative bought a house with a woman he was involved with, and the two have a young child together. The relationship has broken and been patched up a few times, and he has sole custody of the child. The deed to the house is in both their names, but the mortgage is in his name only as he has taken full responsibility for payments on the house. The woman wants out of the relationship, but wants him to leave the house and continue paying the mortgage (as she is unable to pay). If he does this, it will be difficult to support himself and child in a separate residence and keep up the mortgage payments on a house he does not live in. The woman has refused to leave the house or allow it to be sold. Does he have any options that would allow him to stay in the house? Or any options at all?

 

[Zigner]

Barring a court order stating otherwise, he has just as much right to stay in the house as she does. She can't force him out. He can't force her out. What a conundrum.

 

[applegirl129]

Barring a court order stating otherwise, he has just as much right to stay in the house as she does. She can't force him out. He can't force her out. What a conundrum.

Does anyone know what, if anything, might constitute grounds for a court order to remove the woman from the house, as she has never paid anything into the house and has no equity in it? There are other issues which I won't air here, but it would be helpful to know if there is any remedy in the law for such an untenable situation.

 

[Silverplum]

Does anyone know what, if anything, might constitute grounds for a court order to remove the woman from the house, as she has never paid anything into the house and has no equity in it? There are other issues which I won't air here, but it would be helpful to know if there is any remedy in the law for such an untenable situation.

He could begin reading here: http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com/real-estate-law/real-estate-law/sale-of-jointly-owned-property.htm

 

[Zigner]

Does anyone know what, if anything, might constitute grounds for a court order to remove the woman from the house, as she has never paid anything into the house and has no equity in it? There are other issues which I won't air here, but it would be helpful to know if there is any remedy in the law for such an untenable situation.

Silverplum posted information on how to remedy the situation long-term. Your question relating to the short-term is a more difficult one. The woman is just as much an owner of the house as your relative is.

 

[Ohiogal]

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

A relative bought a house with a woman he was involved with, and the two have a young child together. The relationship has broken and been patched up a few times, and he has sole custody of the child. The deed to the house is in both their names, but the mortgage is in his name only as he has taken full responsibility for payments on the house. The woman wants out of the relationship, but wants him to leave the house and continue paying the mortgage (as she is unable to pay). If he does this, it will be difficult to support himself and child in a separate residence and keep up the mortgage payments on a house he does not live in. The woman has refused to leave the house or allow it to be sold. Does he have any options that would allow him to stay in the house? Or any options at all?

This bolded he may find can be changed. Why? Because there was a change in circumstance after he got sole custody -- mom and he lived together again as a family unit. That is a substantial change in circumstance and if mom wants to make a play for custody, she might have a case.

 

[applegirl129]

Silverplum posted information on how to remedy the situation long-term. Your question relating to the short-term is a more difficult one. The woman is just as much an owner of the house as your relative is.

Thank you both for answering. It appears there is no possibility of a fair outcome, which is where my concern lies in the matter. I do realize that legally, with both names on the deed, the woman also has a legal right. However, I was hoping that the mortgage being solely in my relative's name, and his having paid all bills, mortgage and taxes on the property would be taken into consideration. While she is "just as much an owner" legally, I hoped that the law might give offer some redress for the person who had actually carried the property in every way.

Again, thank you both for responding.

 

[Zigner]

Thank you both for answering. It appears there is no possibility of a fair outcome, which is where my concern lies in the matter. I do realize that legally, with both names on the deed, the woman also has a legal right. However, I was hoping that the mortgage being solely in my relative's name, and his having paid all bills, mortgage and taxes on the property would be taken into consideration. While she is "just as much an owner" legally, I hoped that the law might give offer some redress for the person who had actually carried the property in every way.

Again, thank you both for responding.

No, I suspect that there is little possibility of it ending up the way YOU think it should. "Fair" is subjective.

 

[applegirl129]

This bolded he may find can be changed. Why? Because there was a change in circumstance after he got sole custody -- mom and he lived together again as a family unit. That is a substantial change in circumstance and if mom wants to make a play for custody, she might have a case.

I don't want to go into too much detail, but that is unlikely. The mother has been institutionalized several times for mental health issues and behavioral problems. They did not live together as a family unit; he allowed her to live in the house after she was released because she had no place else to go and he did not want to see her in a shelter. When employed, she makes a comfortable wage but has never contributed any of it to the household expenses or for care of her child. He put her name on the deed so that, in case anything ever happened to him, she would have a place to live.

 

[Ohiogal]

I don't want to go into too much detail, but that is unlikely. The mother has been institutionalized several times for mental health issues and behavioral problems. They did not live together as a family unit; he allowed her to live in the house after she was released because she had no place else to go and he did not want to see her in a shelter. When employed, she makes a comfortable wage but has never contributed any of it to the household expenses or for care of her child. He put her name on the deed so that, in case anything ever happened to him, she would have a place to live.

Well I didn't say it WOULD happen. But it could. He needs to file a partition suit to get her off the deed.

 

[STEPHAN]

he allowed her to live in the house

It is not up to him to allow her to live in her house. She is also owner of the house and can live there without asking anybody.

They created a legal mess with the shared ownership and the mortage only in his name. The best solution would be to sell the house.

 

[latigo]

Thank you both for answering. It appears there is no possibility of a fair outcome, which is where my concern lies in the matter. I do realize that legally, with both names on the deed, the woman also has a legal right. However, I was hoping that the mortgage being solely in my relative's name, and his having paid all bills, mortgage and taxes on the property would be taken into consideration. While she is "just as much an owner" legally, I hoped that the law might give offer some redress for the person who had actually carried the property in every way.

Again, thank you both for responding.

Yes, the relative does have legal recourse. (Not necessarily favorable, but they are available.)

1. He can petition the proper court for partition of the property ordering that the property be sold. In that petition he can include a count asking that in the distribution of the proceeds from sale that he be credited for the other co-owner's 1/2 share of the mortgage payments and taxes. Or,

2. He can sue the other co-owner for contribution of her 1/2 share of those costs, obtain a money judgment and then levy execution of the judgement upon her equal undivided ownership of the property.

Then at the execution sale bid in his judgment. No other buyers will appear at the auction because no one with any sense would buy and assume the position of a co-tenant.

However, once the recalcitrant co-owner is made to know that he can force the sale of the property at a sheriff's public auction, she may agree to listing the property on the open market.

As you will now most likely agree holding land in cotenancy, that is among co-owners having equal rights to the possession and management of the property with neither being able to sell or purchase the other's interests without mutual consent, creates a legal nightmare.

 

[Silverplum]

Thank you both for answering. It appears there is no possibility of a fair outcome, which is where my concern lies in the matter. I do realize that legally, with both names on the deed, the woman also has a legal right. However, I was hoping that the mortgage being solely in my relative's name, and his having paid all bills, mortgage and taxes on the property would be taken into consideration. While she is "just as much an owner" legally, I hoped that the law might give offer some redress for the person who had actually carried the property in every way.

Again, thank you both for responding.

You're welcome.

I bolded the illogical parts of your wishes. You can re-read your post and see for yourself. The law is what it is, he made a mistake, the redress is the redress. The "fair outcome" is that the law is followed. His mistake is what makes it seem "unfair" to you, not the law.

 

[applegirl129]

You're welcome.

I bolded the illogical parts of your wishes. You can re-read your post and see for yourself. The law is what it is, he made a mistake, the redress is the redress. The "fair outcome" is that the law is followed. His mistake is what makes it seem "unfair" to you, not the law.

Well, I don't want to get into a philosophical argument, but I can't really agree that the law being followed (which, of course, it will be) always constitutes a fair outcome. If that were the case, we would never have to revise or alter or undo any law; we could merely enforce the law, because the enforcement of (any) law would be deemed a fair outcome not by virtue of its fairness by any ordinary standards, but by virtue of its being the law. We tweak the law because we realize that it isn't always fair and we attempt to remedy that. I don't think it's illogical to seek or desire fairness, and I'm pretty certain that anyone who knew all the facts in this case would not think the proposed "redress" was in any way fair, just or reasonable, and was, in fact, a punishment rather than a redress.

 

[Zigner]

Well, I don't want to get into a philosophical argument, but I can't really agree that the law being followed (which, of course, it will be) always constitutes a fair outcome. If that were the case, we would never have to revise or alter or undo any law; we could merely enforce the law, because the enforcement of (any) law would be deemed a fair outcome not by virtue of its fairness by any ordinary standards, but by virtue of its being the law. We tweak the law because we realize that it isn't always fair and we attempt to remedy that. I don't think it's illogical to seek or desire fairness, and I'm pretty certain that anyone who knew all the facts in this case would not think the proposed "redress" was in any way fair, just or reasonable, and was, in fact, a punishment rather than a redress.

Your relative decided to GIVE this woman half his house. Is it now fair that he takes it away? I think not.