Partition Sale, Family Dispute gone awry.

[jgargano03]

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

My uncle who owns 50% of the property to my siblings collective 50% wants to sell or force a partition sale. He also wants me to pay back rent for living in the house for 1 year. (Stupid me didn't read the fine print.) I only paid for maybe 4 or so months then was laid off and unable to pay the rest. It was my understanding from housing court clerk, that Its not legal to have a lease on property in which you are partial owner. So anything in the lease which was stated would be void. So basically if he sells the house he is going to minus $15k. Now my question would be.... who get's that money? How does that get distributed? How could I be stealing from myself? Help...... this is so complicated. How could he enforce this?

 

[HomeGuru]

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

My uncle who owns 50% of the property to my siblings collective 50% wants to sell or force a partition sale. He also wants me to pay back rent for living in the house for 1 year. (Stupid me didn't read the fine print.) I only paid for maybe 4 or so months then was laid off and unable to pay the rest. It was my understanding from housing court clerk, that Its not legal to have a lease on property in which you are partial owner. So anything in the lease which was stated would be void.


**A: not true.

##############
So basically if he sells the house he is going to minus $15k. Now my question would be.... who get's that money? How does that get distributed? How could I be stealing from myself? Help...... this is so complicated. How could he enforce this?

**A: the money would be distributed via escrow instructions dicated and agreed to by all owners.

 

[jgargano03]

**A: the money would be distributed via escrow instructions dicated and agreed to by all owners.

Why would both the housing court, and my old real estate lawyer tell me that you can't have a lease on property you own?

 

[nextwife]

Why do you think you shouldn't pay your co owners for use of an asset that could have been proving them income for THEIR shares? At minimum, if you were the one living there instead of a paying tenant, don't you should have been covering the property taxes and utilities?

 

[tranquility]

As long as we're asking questions, I've got one:

Why should the OP pay for something he already has a right to do?

I mean, as an owner, he has right of possession to the property.

Now, there may be a contract out there. MAY be. I don't think it is "illegal" to have a lease (certainly not such that it is void) to stay on a property which is already owned, but I would like to explore the concept of consideration. Timing of ownership and signing and what each put up for the money and right of possession could all affect as to if there is a contract at all--but, I'd hardly use the term "illegal". (I can certainly imagine some problems if we get to the concept of merger, but not in this multiple-owner situation.)

If there is a partition sale, the court will determine who gets what. That's one reason why they are so expensive. If it is a simple sale, each will get what each agrees to in whatever negotiation went on to get a signing on the deed.

 

[nextwife]

As long as we're asking questions, I've got one:

Why should the OP pay for something he already has a right to do?

I mean, as an owner, he has right of possession to the property.

Now, there may be a contract out there. MAY be. I don't think it is "illegal" to have a lease (certainly not such that it is void) to stay on a property which is already owned, but I would like to explore the concept of consideration. Timing of ownership and signing and what each put up for the money and right of possession could all affect as to if there is a contract at all--but, I'd hardly use the term "illegal". (I can certainly imagine some problems if we get to the concept of merger, but not in this multiple-owner situation.)

If there is a partition sale, the court will determine who gets what. That's one reason why they are so expensive. If it is a simple sale, each will get what each agrees to in whatever negotiation went on to get a signing on the deed.

As a co-owner, he has shared rights to the property. AS a fair minded sibling and co owner, he should understand that if he is tying up 100% of a property for which he does not have 100% ownership, the other owners should be compensated. After all, if partial co owner were not making use of 100%. all owners could benefit from ownerhsip, by either recieving rental income to offset their ownership expenses (Prop taxes, insurance, maintenance, water/sewer charges etc.) and by it's use as a homestead. I co owned a property myself with two other siblings - it never occurred to any of us to take sole use of the property.

How is being the exclusive resident and getting full residential use really any different than renting it and taking 100% of the rental income for oneself alone? In either case, the only owner benefitting from the property is himself.

 

[Zigner]

As long as we're asking questions, I've got one:

Why should the OP pay for something he already has a right to do?

Maybe because that's what he AGREED to do?

 

[jgargano03]

As a co-owner, he has shared rights to the property. AS a fair minded sibling and co owner, he should understand that if he is tying up 100% of a property for which he does not have 100% ownership, the other owners should be compensated. After all, if partial co owner were not making use of 100%. all owners could benefit from ownerhsip, by either recieving rental income to offset their ownership expenses (Prop taxes, insurance, maintenance, water/sewer charges etc.) and by it's use as a homestead. I co owned a property myself with two other siblings - it never occurred to any of us to take sole use of the property.

How is being the exclusive resident and getting full residential use really any different than renting it and taking 100% of the rental income for oneself alone? In either case, the only owner benefitting from the property is himself.

I was paying $1100 a month to live there... I got laid off and unemployment only paid me $100 a week to live so I had no other choice but to not pay or be homeless. Also, this is a 2 family house, and my family was still getting money from tenants who lived down stairs.. Also, me, my father, and brother maintained this property for 20+ years without any additional financial compensation while my uncle who own 50% never did ****.. He only wanted to know something when he was getting his check for $300 a month. I was also suppose to be provided a trust fund from time I was 12 years old to 25 years which I never saw ever... It was mismanaged by my own father(trustee) and my uncle was aware but didn't give a ****. I think maybe the court needs to take into consideration those other factors.

 

[tranquility]

As a co-owner, he has shared rights to the property. AS a fair minded sibling and co owner, he should understand that if he is tying up 100% of a property for which he does not have 100% ownership, the other owners should be compensated. After all, if partial co owner were not making use of 100%. all owners could benefit from ownerhsip, by either recieving rental income to offset their ownership expenses (Prop taxes, insurance, maintenance, water/sewer charges etc.) and by it's use as a homestead. I co owned a property myself with two other siblings - it never occurred to any of us to take sole use of the property.

How is being the exclusive resident and getting full residential use really any different than renting it and taking 100% of the rental income for oneself alone? In either case, the only owner benefitting from the property is himself.

I agree there is no legal requirement.

Maybe because that's what he AGREED to do?

Do you claim there is a legal duty here? (As in, a contract.)