During a breakup can adult 1 charge adult 2's 30yr old child rent to live in 50/50 h?

[HunterT]

Again, the fact that the two co-owners used to be in a relationship is irrelevant. Look, this does not appear to be about the actual money, but about your hurt feelings and you looking for a way to "stick it" to the other party. Perhaps it would be in your best interest to not remain in the house pending its sale.

On top of that watch me speak to a lawyer and find out your wrong. Your probably stating your opinion not facts.

 

[Eekamouse]

Not exactly the case. For the past several years 50% of arguments have been: when is your daughter moving out? When is she going to contribute.? Etc.. There is a lot more to the story so I'm sure if you heard everything you would actually pick the side of the person who doesn't have the child still living in the house. And if you would then you an enabler too.

At the end of the day my question was answered that there is nothing that can be done. Which I am accepting. There is no need for people like you to leave a smart comment on this thread.

No, actually, I'd likely be on your side. It's very unfair that your former partner isn't on the same page as you with making her child be self sufficient and responsible for herself. I feel your pain. I imagine the daughter is thrilled she's come between you two and is part of the cause of your break up (I assume, anyway).

 

[HRZ]

OP there is nothing the legal system is going too do as to our belief that your ex partner should contribute more due to presence of their adult child . I would think it reasonable that the presence of 3d adult be factored into all costs but this was never part of the deal you struck and it is too late now as you post it.

Caution ...that 3d person is most likely a tenant and tenants have piles of rights , and it may be most daunting to get the place sold promptly with a tenant ensconce in there and failing to move out and (if ) your ex failing to take due process steps to implement same .

 

[not2cleverRed]

On top of that watch me speak to a lawyer and find out your wrong. Your probably stating your opinion not facts.

Right... Because we're all 30 year olds posting from our parents basements in our underwear.

Getting answers different from what you'd like to hear doesn't mean that the answers are wrong.

OP there is nothing the legal system is going too do as to our belief that your ex partner should contribute more due to presence of their adult child . I would think it reasonable that the presence of 3d adult be factored into all costs but this was never part of the deal you struck and it is too late now as you post it.

Caution ...that 3d person is most likely a tenant and tenants have piles of rights , and it may be most daunting to get the place sold promptly with a tenant ensconce in there and failing to move out and (if ) your ex failing to take due process steps to implement same .

Hush HRZ! You're not saying what OP wants to hear... You must be an enabler. Or, like the rest of us, posting from a relative's basement in our underwear. (I'll add a fluffy robe and bunny slippers - it was nippy this morning.)

About the only solution I can see for OP continuing to live there is to essentially split the place into 2 units. Separate fridges, separate cable bill.... eventually separate electric and water bills...

I see the 30 year old making it difficult to market this house. (We have one of those cases in my neighborhood... the real estate photos are unintentionally hilarious - the one in focus have dirty garbage cans in rooms.)

 

[LdiJ]

On top of that watch me speak to a lawyer and find out your wrong. Your probably stating your opinion not facts.

You were doing so good there for a minute. Please feel free to waste your money consulting with an attorney.

 

[stealth2]

On top of that watch me speak to a lawyer and find out your wrong. Your probably stating your opinion not facts.

Go pay a lawyer then and stop wasting our time.

 

[cbg]

As an example to my final question.

It is understandable that they both still have to split the mortgage and no rent has to be paid by the child. But if taken to court is there a chance that Adult 1 and child should have to pay more towards utilities, food, and other living expenses that the 3 of them share?

Is there a chance? Yes, there is a chance that if taken to court Adult 1 will end up having to pay a larger share.

Is it a certainty? No, it is not a certainty. It is also possible that the court will tell both Adult 1 and Adult 2 to start behaving LIKE adults and stop wasting his time with issues you should be able to work out yourselves.

 

[latigo]

I appreciate you answering my question. I have already accepted the answer. No need for you to jump to conclusions and assume feelings are hurt. There has been arguments for years about the child (30yr) living in the house not contributing at all. I was simply wondering if anything could be done by law.

Some others may, but I don't know of any precedent one way or the other. In the many years of reading on the subject of estates in co-tenancy I have never seen it mentioned as an issue of the interrelationship of co-owners.

But considering the fact that tenants in common own and undivided portion of the whole of the property and in some jurisdictions possess the right to rent the property I favor the right of the mother in this instance. For example say you and the mother both owned an automobile and mom let her daughter drive it. I don't see that you'd have legal recourse to prevent it. Or vice versa.

Anyway undoubtedly it is not a fair arrangement with the daughter free loading. So, if you don't wish to further tolerate contributing to the support of her precious daughter what I would do in your shoes is to tell mom that she and her child either start contributing two third to all expenses relating to the use of he home, including the mortgage payments and taxes, OR I intend to start proceedings under New Jersey law to secure a court ordering partitioning it by sale. (N. J. S. 2A:65-1 et seq.)

And that she could no prevent, unless she agrees to buy you out on your terms.

 

[LdiJ]

Some others may, but I don't know of any precedent one way or the other. In the many years of reading on the subject of estates in co-tenancy I have never seen it mentioned as an issue of the interrelationship of co-owners.

But considering the fact that tenants in common own and undivided portion of the whole of the property and in some jurisdictions possess the right to rent the property I favor the right of the mother in this instance. For example say you and the mother both owned an automobile and mom let her daughter drive it. I don't see that you'd have legal recourse to prevent it. Or vice versa.

Anyway undoubtedly it is not a fair arrangement with the daughter free loading. So, if you don't wish to further tolerate contributing to the support of her precious daughter what I would do in your shoes is to tell mom that she and her child either start contributing two third to all expenses relating to the use of he home, including the mortgage payments and taxes, OR I intend to start proceedings under New Jersey law to secure a court ordering partitioning it by sale. (N. J. S. 2A:65-1 et seq.)

And that she could no prevent, unless she agrees to buy you out on your terms.

The house is already on the market. They are only staying there until it sells. It would be economically unwise to start a partition suit. They are expensive and the house is sold at auction.

 

[Ohiogal]

The house is already on the market. They are only staying there until it sells. It would be economically unwise to start a partition suit. They are expensive and the house is sold at auction.

Yeah but this OP wants to make the child pay -- so.. that would be one way of SHOWING THE OTHER SIDE. Regardless of how shortsighted OP is in doing so. After all you spent a lot of time helping him on this thread and all he did was turn around and snipe at you when you said ONE thing he didn't like. So he has the temperament of a child.