Owning a house with someone who no longer lives on property

[srrbell]

Hello, I wasn't sure where exactly I should post this so hopefully this is the right place.

My ex and I bought a house together a little over three years ago. We broke up and he moved out of the house in May; we couldn't agree whether one of us was going to buy the other out, or if we were going to sell. So in the meantime, I have been living here paying for the house on my own. About a month ago, someone moved in with me and has been helping me with payments, so it has been a huge weight off my shoulders. My ex finally agreed to let me buy him out, so I have begun the process, but he is refusing to let this person live in the house. And he is now saying that even though he does not wish to move back into the house, he will do so, just to have this person removed from the home.

Is there anything, ANYTHING, at all that I can do to prevent that from happening?

 

[justalayman]

Sure. You can tell him that as an owner of the home you can allow anybody you wnt to live in the home BUT understand that as a half owner of the home, he is due 1/2 of the rental income derived from the home. That means your ex gets half of the payment your current is making to you.

 

[LdiJ]

Sure. You can tell him that as an owner of the home you can allow anybody you wnt to live in the home BUT understand that as a half owner of the home, he is due 1/2 of the rental income derived from the home. That means your ex gets half of the payment your current is making to you.

But, if ex is to get 1/2 of any rental income then he also has to be paying 1/2 of the mortgage and any other rental expenses. There really is no point in even going there. There is virtually no chance that a profit is actually being made, and its really 1/2 of the profits he might be entitled to receive.

A shareholder in a corporation does not get his/her percentage share of the corporation's GROSS income...rental activity is no different.

 

[justalayman]

But, if ex is to get 1/2 of any rental income then he also has to be paying 1/2 of the mortgage and any other rental expenses. There really is no point in even going there. There is virtually no chance that a profit is actually being made, and its really 1/2 of the profits he might be entitled to receive.

A shareholder in a corporation does not get his/her percentage share of the corporation's GROSS income...rental activity is no different.

Yes he is liable for them and has been from the beginning barring an agreement otherwise. The problem with your analogy is the people are not a corporation. The rental income and the expenses, while truly intertwined, are often dealt with seperately by those that don't understand the situation and legalities.

And what do you mean there is no way a profit is being made? Without numbers how can you even venture a guess like that?

Bottom line; he can demand and even sue for 1/2 of the rental income. If op does not respond properly he will get it. If op takes no action to recover what is due her it becomes a seperate matter and is her loss.

 

[LdiJ]

Yes he is liable for them and has been from the beginning barring an agreement otherwise. The problem with your analogy is the people are not a corporation. The rental income and the expenses, while truly intertwined, are often dealt with seperately by those that don't understand the situation and legalities.

And what do you mean there is no way a profit is being made? Without numbers how can you even venture a guess like that?

Bottom line; he can demand and even sue for 1/2 of the rental income. If op does not respond properly he will get it. If op takes no action to recover what is due her it becomes a seperate matter and is her loss.

Renting is a business, just like any other business. If someone was awarded 50% of any business they don't just get to take 1/2 of the gross income from the business, they get to take 1/2 of the profits if there are any. What I mean by no profit being made is that when there is a mortgage, and mortgage interest, its rare to see anyone actually show a profit from a rental activity. Generally, profits don't start coming into play until the mortgage is seriously paid down. They have only owned this home for 3 years, therefore there is little chance that their mortgage is paid down enough that there would actually be profits from a rental activity.

 

[justalayman]

Renting is a business, just like any other business. If someone was awarded 50% of any business they don't just get to take 1/2 of the gross income from the business, they get to take 1/2 of the profits if there are any. What I mean by no profit being made is that when there is a mortgage, and mortgage interest, its rare to see anyone actually show a profit from a rental activity. Generally, profits don't start coming into play until the mortgage is seriously paid down. They have only owned this home for 3 years, therefore there is little chance that their mortgage is paid down enough that there would actually be profits from a rental activity.

So you know how much they put down and the amount of the mortgage loan? You are speculating with no facts to support it

And in regards to the relationship between the two parties; no, it is not a business relationship. Bottom line is each is entitled to 1/2 of the income derived from the rental income. Neither person has the authority to arbitrarily impose costs of the rental matters or costs associated with the home that are equally attributable to both parties or the costs of the mortgage loan so as it stands, ex can demand his share of the rental income without having to apply possible debts owed to the op. If the op wants to seek those expenses then she can make a demand and if ex refuses to pay she can sue. While a court can use the claim by either side as an offset to debts determined to be owed to the other party, neither the op or the ex have the authority to impose it as an offset themselves. They are intertwined but they are seperate matters.

 

[LdiJ]

So you know how much they put down and the amount of the mortgage loan? You are speculating with no facts to support it

And in regards to the relationship between the two parties; no, it is not a business relationship. Bottom line is each is entitled to 1/2 of the income derived from the rental income. Neither person has the authority to arbitrarily impose costs of the rental matters or costs associated with the home that are equally attributable to both parties or the costs of the mortgage loan so as it stands, ex can demand his share of the rental income without having to apply possible debts owed to the op. If the op wants to seek those expenses then she can make a demand and if ex refuses to pay she can sue. While a court can use the claim by either side as an offset to debts determined to be owed to the other party, neither the op or the ex have the authority to impose it as an offset themselves. They are intertwined but they are seperate matters.

I disagree. I would never give someone 1/2 of rents if they were not paying 1/2 of expenses. I also seriously doubt that a judge would do that either unless the party paying the expenses simply rolled over and played dead in the courtroom.

 

[justalayman]

I disagree. I would never give someone 1/2 of rents if they were not paying 1/2 of expenses. I also seriously doubt that a judge would do that either unless the party paying the expenses simply rolled over and played dead in the courtroom.

disagree all you wish and what you would or wouldnt do is irrelevant. The income derived from rent and the possible debts either party accrued for the house are seperate issues because the ex is not in the business of being a landlord while the op is. The possible debts owed between the ex and the op are seperate issues.

A judge cannot unilaterally impose a suit on behalf of one of the parties before them. Kind of kills that impartial thing they are required to maintain. A judge would actually be remiss if they provided legal counsel to one party over the other as well. A judge is bound to be the trier of facts as presented by the parties before them.


On top of that we have no idea if there was any sort of agreement between the parties. I can easily imagine something like; hey, you're living there by yourself while I have to buy/rent a place for me to live so I propose you be liable for the mortgage loan, taxes, and maintenance of the property.

I can just as easily imagine the op saying; ok, no problem.

As it stands all we know is the ex has not agreed that anybody other than the op live in the house. Based on that we can reasonably presume there was no agreement of a situation where rental income is involved. Given the demeanor of the op and what appears to be a reasonably amiable split, it is quite reasonable to speculate there may have been an agreement such as i suggested concerning the expenses of the property.

 

[LdiJ]

disagree all you wish and what you would or wouldnt do is irrelevant. The income derived from rent and the possible debts either party accrued for the house are seperate issues because the ex is not in the business of being a landlord while the op is. The possible debts owed between the ex and the op are seperate issues.

A judge cannot unilaterally impose a suit on behalf of one of the parties before them. Kind of kills that impartial thing they are required to maintain. A judge would actually be remiss if they provided legal counsel to one party over the other as well. A judge is bound to be the trier of facts as presented by the parties before them.


On top of that we have no idea if there was any sort of agreement between the parties. I can easily imagine something like; hey, you're living there by yourself while I have to buy/rent a place for me to live so I propose you be liable for the mortgage loan, taxes, and maintenance of the property.

I can just as easily imagine the op saying; ok, no problem.

As it stands all we know is the ex has not agreed that anybody other than the op live in the house. Based on that we can reasonably presume there was no agreement of a situation where rental income is involved. Given the demeanor of the op and what appears to be a reasonably amiable split, it is quite reasonable to speculate there may have been an agreement such as i suggested concerning the expenses of the property.

She doesn't need the ex's agreement for anyone else to live in the home, and the rent is to help cover the expenses to keep the mortgage paid. The ex would also have some major hissy fit if she couldn't make the payments on time and messed up his credit.

She is also in the process of buying him out. We all know what this is.

 

[tranquility]

All owners are entitled to the "profits" from jointly-owned land. What that means is almost certainly not the same as what an accountant would call a profit from the rental.

 

[Zigner]

All owners are entitled to the "profits" from jointly-owned land. What that means is almost certainly not the same as what an accountant would call a profit from the rental.

For two owners, that would be (income-expense)/2. The other party is not entitled to 50% of the gross rentals receipts.

 

[justalayman]

She doesn't need the ex's agreement for anyone else to live in the home, and the rent is to help cover the expenses to keep the mortgage paid. The ex would also have some major hissy fit if she couldn't make the payments on time and messed up his credit.

She is also in the process of buying him out. We all know what this is.

Short memory? I'm the one that first said the op could allow whomever they wish to live in the house

It makes no difference what one says the rent is for. It's rent and that is all that matters.

The fact op is in the process of buying out the ex is also irrelevant and always remember the deal isn't done until the paperwork is completed. Ex could simply change his mind and say no

 

[LdiJ]

Short memory? I'm the one that first said the op could allow whomever they wish to live in the house

It makes no difference what one says the rent is for. It's rent and that is all that matters.

The fact op is in the process of buying out the ex is also irrelevant and always remember the deal isn't done until the paperwork is completed. Ex could simply change his mind and say no

Neither one of us are attorneys. However, you told her pretty much uncategorically (I know that's not spelled right) that she had to give him 1/2 of the rent. He hasn't even demanded that she give him 1/2 of the rent. In fact, she didn't even say that the person living there was paying rent, all she said was that the person was helping with payments...so we don't even know if that person is paying a "fixed rent".

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

If it were me, I would have the person living there sharing "expenses" and not paying rent.

 

[srrbell]

Thank you for all your replies.

Ultimately what is happening is, the person living with me is a friend and the situation is temporary. He recently got divorced and lost everything, so I offered to let him stay with me until he gets back on his feet. I didn't ask for rent, so nothing is fixed, but he gives me money every week to cover certain expenses.

My ex doesn't like the idea of this person staying here solely because he is male. He called me today and said, "I don't like the idea of another guy living in my house." To which I replied, you haven't lived here for months, nor have you paid any of the bills since you left. So now he's saying that even though he really doesn't want to live here, he will move back in just so he can call the cops and have the guy removed. That seems absolutely absurd to me, and I'd like to prevent that from happening if I can. His name is still on the mortgage, so I know he has some say. But as a co-owner, I have a say as well. So if my ex called the cops, but my roommate hadn't spoken to or threatened my ex in any way, would the cops actually remove him?

Obviously he can say, "I own this house and I don't want this person here so make him leave." But couldn't I also say, "well I also own this house and I DO want him here"?

Clearly I'm dealing with a child here, but I just have no idea how this would all play out or what I should do.