• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

extortion?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

helenkeller11

Junior Member
Lets look at this from a different point of view.

Your sister owns half of the house. Therefore you should have been paying her 1/2 of fair market value rent. Your sister owns half of the house, so she should have received 1/2 of any rent paid (after expenses) for the upstairs apartment. She also should have been responsible for 1/2 of the major maintenance and property taxes.

So, add up 1/2 of fair market rent over 26 years, plus 1/2 of the net proceeds (after expenses) for the rental upstairs, and then compare that to the expenses that you actually paid. Obviously you have not paid property taxes in quite a long time. You are now asking your sister to pay 24k worth of unpaid property taxes.

Its not surprising that she thinks that she should get ownership of the property in exchange for you getting 26 years living in the property without giving her any rent, plus paying 24k in back property taxes. That doesn't mean that you should have to agree with her, particularly if the property is worth a significant amount, but it doesn't mean that she is being unreasonable either.

Either sell the property and split the proceeds (after paying off the taxes) or find some other source of funds.


Yes, LdiJ, you are correct in most of what you say. One big thing, however - on the deed we are listed as 'tenants in common.' This means either she, I or the both of us can live in the house 'for free.' She chose not to. So, due to the wording of the deed, I do not owe her any fair market rent for living in a place I own. This changes the equation you put forward in a big way. All she is due are half the rents, if that.

As you say, she does, definitely owe half of all the property taxes for 26 years, as well as the upkeep and improvements. True, I have not paid some (not all) of the taxes since 2009. (As I said, hard times. And, my big mistake was thinking that the taxes would come due in order of due date, not all at once. My big bad!)) So. in my eyes, the very least she can do is pay that. I'm not even asking her for 1/2 of all the 26 years. She ought to be more than grateful for that. That option will be open to me even if I lose the house. It will pretty much be open and shut. I have kept all the receipts, tax forms, etc. from all those years.

As for the rental income, perhaps. I have gotten varying opinions on this. If a person has an investment, it is up to them to keep track of it. She hasn't been doing that. Her name does not appear on any of the leases. She did not make agreements with any of the tenants in this respect. I was the one who rented. Some lawyers have said these were agreements with which she had nothing to do with, so no benefits for her. Others have said what you said. Anyway, not a problem, should she choose to ask for half the rents, then she will also be responsible for paying the back taxes on that income. On the advice of my accountant, for all these years, I have been claiming only half the rental income. This is something that will be up to her. Let me just say, the rental was not a huge money maker, and with deductions, I'm not sure she would even come out ahead, she may end up owing in that regard also.

As I said, there is someone who is willing to float me the money. However, I would really like for her to step up to her responsibility. Seems like I can't get any ideas as to how to make this happen. I'm seeing that most likely, I cannot.

On top of being uninvolved, I feel she is now being extremely greedy. That is why I'm wondering about the issue of extortion. I would like to divert her from this ugly course of action. Perhaps, I will have to resort to 'negotiating' with her in terms of her share of the 26 years of back taxes. I just hate being forced into doing something so distasteful. As I said, she left no forwarding address, and it was not easy finding her now. I bring this up because, in essence, she abandoned her duties as co-executrix and co-owner of the house. It was a lot to put on me at a time when I was grieving mightily. She really left me no choice but to live here, take care of business and take care of the house. And, yes, over the years I have come to be comfortable with the responsibility and in my heart, this is my home. So, I feel more than threatened by her at this point. I guess most everyone who asks for legal advice is not in a happy place. Thank you for your views.
 


helenkeller11

Junior Member
You will not win an unjust enrichment lawsuit. The elements of the tort are simply not there. I disagree with the others you owe rent to sister as each owner has a right of possession. I disagree with you that the money you put in should be compensated for in some way. The proper way to enforce your rights might have been to claim sister committed "waste" when she did not pay her share of the taxes. Most of that is long gone because of the statute of limitations now. If you force the issue legally, I predict you will find yourself on the wrong end of a partition lawsuit and the house will be sold on the courthouse steps. The liens will be paid and you and sister split the rest. (With a possible exception of the property taxes paid by you within the statute of limitations.)
Thank you tranquility. Not great news, but sound. Can you be more specific as to what the statutes of limitation are?
 

OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
Based on $1k p/month rent you saved, you have saved well over $300k in rent. A court will compare your issue to that of a life tenant. A life tenant is responsible for ALL upkeep, maintenance and taxes. Trying to argue your sister has received about $350k of benefit from the home also and is therefore responsible for $24k in taxes will provide the court its laugh of the week.
 

Eekamouse

Senior Member
What happened that she just walked away from the house? Was there a fight between you two? Didn't you ever try to find her over the years to discuss what was to be done with the house?
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Thank you tranquility. Not great news, but sound. Can you be more specific as to what the statutes of limitation are?
Statutes of limitation are time periods by statute that limits the amount of time one can go back to sue. I took a quick look at the actual times in IL and could not easily find the length for something like this and it might be something for the lawyers to argue in court which category it falls under. I would suggest three years might be reasonable, but waste might tack on much longer because of the tax lien. I just don't know without real research.

I didn't read LdiJ's post that clearly as I agree with her that "profits" (In this case it would be related to rents collected.) need to be split between the owners.
As you say, she does, definitely owe half of all the property taxes for 26 years, as well as the upkeep and improvements.
Taxes, for sure. Upkeep? Not really. You might have been able to sue for upkeep near the time you determined it necessary so the court could decide if it was necessary and was not caused by your own usage. Today I don't think you'd get much satisfaction. Improvements would probably be considered a gift to sister. You don't get to decide on your own to improve the property and then charge sister for her half absent a contract stating such.

As for the rental income, perhaps. I have gotten varying opinions on this. If a person has an investment, it is up to them to keep track of it. She hasn't been doing that. Her name does not appear on any of the leases. She did not make agreements with any of the tenants in this respect. I was the one who rented. Some lawyers have said these were agreements with which she had nothing to do with, so no benefits for her. Others have said what you said. Anyway, not a problem, should she choose to ask for half the rents, then she will also be responsible for paying the back taxes on that income. On the advice of my accountant, for all these years, I have been claiming only half the rental income. This is something that will be up to her. Let me just say, the rental was not a huge money maker, and with deductions, I'm not sure she would even come out ahead, she may end up owing in that regard also.
No lawyer told you that 1/2 of the profits did not belong to the co-owner. I can't say rents as all the cases say profits and don't define the term. Gross or net is not clear. But, 1/2 belong to sister, period. Don't start spewing rubbish about the taxes she would owe either. Strictly speaking, you guys probably would have needed a partnership return although we often just split the income and expenses in such a situation as well. Your accountant may have given you advice that was incorrect because of your lack of disclosure. You took all the rent and only claimed 1/2 on your taxes. That may be correct tax wise, but may not be correct either. You may have breached your fiduciary duties to sister and would be subject to suit with a damage multiplier due to the actions taken. I'd need to know all the actual numbers and treatment by all parties to know the actual issues. I just think you will come out on the wrong end of things here too.
 

TheGeekess

Keeper of the Kraken
Thank you for your input. It's not nitpicking to ask someone who is offering advice what their background and credentials are. That's just smart. You know the poster and I don't, now I know more. So again, thank you. However, and more importantly, there's such a thing in this country as free speech, no? I would think that on a law site, this would be a given in practice and not questioned. As for getting something for free, that's exactly the reason why I'm asking, I know there's NSTAAFL. And, what you perceive as attitude, well, that's just me. I suggest you don't read more into it than what's written there.
"Free speech" protects political speech. The owners of the website/domain/server can decide what is and isn't posted on their privately owned site. :cool:
 

tranquility

Senior Member
No, free speech means exactly that. The FIRST AMENDMENT guarantees no government restrictions. There IS a difference.
Yet, I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, say copyrighted works, defame others, disparage any number of agricultural products...so "no" government restrictions isn't quite right either.
 
So, I can't yell out in a crowded theater verbatim a copyrighted story of Oprah's screed against beef?

Well, there goes my afternoon plan.
 
I don't see why it is so difficult to understand free speech. The government cannot crack down on you for *political* speech.

You can and will be fired or castigated in the non-governmental world for speaking out. For example, some duck-hunter just got suspended by a cable network for stating his opinions about gays and blacks, and immediately a bunch raises the cry of "free speech".

What happens if he blows his duck-whistle in a crowded theater?
 
Last edited:

Proserpina

Senior Member
Sure, you have the absolute right to say anything you like. Short of someone using a ball-gag on you, anyway.

And you also have the absolute right to deal with the consequences afterwards. <--- this is the bit people forget/ignore/pout about.
 

OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
I don't see why it is so difficult to understand about free speech. The government cannot crack down on you for *political* speech. You can and will be fired or castigated in the non-governmental world for speaking out. For example, some duck-hunter just got suspended by a cable network for stating his opinions about gays and blacks, and immediately a bunch raises the cry of "free speech".

What happens if he blows his duck-whistle in a crowded theater?
So that is what Phil is going to be doing during his prosecutorial hiatus?
 

davew128

Senior Member
Yet, I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, say copyrighted works, defame others, disparage any number of agricultural products...so "no" government restrictions isn't quite right either.
No, you can't say anything negative about the gay and lesbian community or you get fired from your top rated cable show.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top