Rights between co-owners

[justalayman]

Ok, thanks Justalayman....I guess I am using the wrong terminology. My name was put on a piece of paper showing me as owner and the co-owners name did not show, so I assumed that her name was somewhere else showing as a joint owner. I have been calling it a deed but it must be a title.

There is no physical title. Title for property is along the same vein as owning a bicycle. You own it. You use receipts from owner/seller to buyer to show the exchanges of ownership. The receipts would be analogous to deeds which are used to transfer ownership of real estate (in most cases)


Anyway, there can be multiple deeds in play on a piece of property. As an example;

I own a piece of property. I give a 1/5 share to one of my children. I execute a deed. Then I decide to give a 1/5 share to another of my children so I execute another deed. I do this 2 more times (1/5 share each time). I have granted 4/5 of my original interest to my 4 children each with a separate deed. The only names on the deed will be mine as grantor and the individual child as grantee. Now my original deed that shows me being granted a 100% interest in the land is still in effect. If you read only my deed you would think I owned all of the land because once a deed is delivered to the grantee, it does not get changed.

Each of my children hold deeds that show they own a 1/5 interest in the land.

You cannot determine who owns all of the land unless you research all the deeds and with that you figure out who owns what.

Just the same I could use one deed to transfer a 1/5 share to each of the 4 children using just one deed. The names on this deed would be mine as grantor and each of the 4 children as granted. The end result is the same (if title in the common deed is as tenants in common. Joint tenancy, if desired, adds another level of complexity to the mix)

It can be very confusing.

To determine ownership of the entire lot you have to go back far enough in the chain of title to be able to figure out Who owns all of the the land. Ultimately it starts with the first transfer from the US government to a subsequent owner or owners. It is then followed through all deeds and actions against the title to figure out who the current owner(s) is/are.

So, start with the deed you have. Use pseudonyms but list the grsntor(s) and grantee(s) and the share of interest conveyed and how title is held (tenants in common, joint, something else) . I’m sure there will be more questions once we reach that point.

 

[Zigner]

If your ex-husband is still alive, I can see him suing you over your illegal actions.

 

[catwise]

Thank you justalayman for your detailed explanation.

It is making more sense now but you are right, it is very confusing.

It shows as tenants in common.

I made an apt. with my lawyer and he is going to go over chain of title with me.

I appreciate your help.

 

[catwise]

<quote>If you split it 1/3 to each child it could become a real mess to do. If you do the 1/3 split, your family would then own more than your cotenants family (2/3 for yours and 1/3 for hers). Is there a reason she should relinquish any of her interest just to slow the 1/3 split situstion? It seems unfair to me. <quote>

It does seem unfair at first glance. My mother paid 1/3, I paid 1/3, co-tenant paid 1/3. The idea was that there were 3 kids and each would be equal owners. That way none of them could be in more control than the other. We are all related, including the co-tenant. It is starting to sound like we did not set it up correctly. I am holding her to the original agreement and will be sorting it out through an attorney one way or another.

Anyway...I do appreciate your help. Thank you.

 

[justalayman]

Since it is as tenants in common, you each own whatever share stated (or equal divisions if not stated). That means you can do with your 1/2 interest share as you wish. If you gift it to your children upon your death (and presuming you give equal shares to each child), then each of your children will own a 1/4 interest share in the whole. Your co-tenant, if they do the same, in giving their child their 1/2 interest share in the whole they currently own will result in their child having a 1/2 interest share of the whole just as their mother does now. at That point each family will still own a 1/2 interest share in the whole. It’s just that yours will be divided between your two children.

The part that concerns me is how did you get to the status you are now. If title prior to this was held as tenants in common, as each owner died their share would not go to you and the other living co-tenant unless each owner directed such a distribution to be given to the remaining living owners of the property (or their is a familial relationship involved and there is no will and the remaining tenants happened to be the heirs per the laws of intestate succession of the decedents state), their shares would have gone to their heirs or even sold to liquidate their estate so it is able to distribute it to their estates heirs or creditors.


I believe it is a very good idea to speak with an attorney who can review the entire situation and advise you. My biggest fear is that the succcesson of ownership has not been handled properly as a share holder has died and you have a very huge mess in your hands now. It can be extremely difficult to correct mishandling of such matters.

 

[catwise]

I believe you are right in that it did not get handled properly. It took my lawyer 3 weeks to call me back so he may actually realize the mistake. I'm sure I will pay a lot of money to get it sorted out. In the meantime, more trees have died and I am dropping another $3000 next week to get them removed. Removing the trees has cost me more than the property cost altogether. It is turning into a nightmare.

 

[justalayman]

The cost to maintain the property is rightfully shared by all owners of the property. That means the cost of removing the trees is 1/2 your liability and 1/2 to the other owner. She can argue she would not remove the trees. If she does you would have to put forth an argument as to why the trees must be removed. If there is no legal or real reason to remove the trees and it’s by your choice alone, then the full cost would be born by you.

 

[catwise]

There are a total of 4 cabins around that the trees could have fallen on. About 125 trees have been removed. They would have fallen on someone's cabin or worse...on someone. It was extremely dangerous no doubt about it. I had no choice but to pay to have them removed.

 

[justalayman]

That suggests all co-owners of the property should share in the cost to remove the trees

 

[LdiJ]

There are a total of 4 cabins around that the trees could have fallen on. About 125 trees have been removed. They would have fallen on someone's cabin or worse...on someone. It was extremely dangerous no doubt about it. I had no choice but to pay to have them removed.

What is killing off the trees? I think that I would be just as concerned about that as anything else at this point. 125 dead trees is a pretty serious issue.

 

[HRZ]

GO back and get copies of the prior deed (s) you supposedly cleaned up ...attorney will need them

ITs possible that original was Mom and say 5 children by name , JTWROS and now but 2 children survive ....and the deed was rewritten to reflect only the two living owners and at the time the owners preferred each to own 1/2 and the deed was correctly written as TIC to reflect same .

Co ownership is often ripe for problems especially if one owner is unwilling or unable to keep up maintenance and taxes and insurance etc.

 

[HRZ]

IT is likey that deeded lands BEFORE OP was married were separate property and her EX has no claim to same