Timeshare Transfer of Title

[Jane30]

I currently am paying for a timeshare that I bought 5 years ago with an ex-boyfriend. I have paid all of the monthly payments and he paid 3 maintaince fees for the 3 years WE used it. When we broke up I asked him to sign a Transfer of title, which he refused due to the fact that he thought I owed him money for that. During the last few years I have paid all of the maintaince fees and the monthly payment.

Do I really owe him money, even though he used the timeshare the three years he paid the maintaince fee?

Jane30 of Maine

 

[JETX]

Do I really owe him money, even though he used the timeshare the three years he paid the maintaince fee?

Absent an AGREEMENT to specifically split costs neither of you owes the other anything.
You are CO-owners and EACH equally obligated to pay the full costs and fees. If you don't pay, he must. If he doesn't pay, you must. Neither has an obligation to reimburse the other.

 

[latigo]

It appears that your concern is getting him to turn over to you his equal undivided ownership in the time-share.

Well, you cannot force him to do that no matter what is in dispute regarding who paid what.

In more ways than one you made a dumb decision in jointly purchasing the time-share and creating a cotenancy. Now you are stuck with it because neither can force the other to sell their respective interest. And both of you have the right to occupy the property regardless of who is paying the bills.

If you wish to keep it and he won’t voluntarily give up his interest, you have one legal option outside of a suit for partition.

That would be to sue him for his one half of what you have paid out to keep and maintain it; get a judgment against him, record the judgment and then foreclose the judgment and bid in your judgment at the sheriff’s sale.

 

[Jane30]

He wants me to pay him 1000 dollars for his signature on the transfer of title even though he does not want to own it. I just wanted to know if it makes any sense at all legally, if I should have to pay him any amount of money?

 

[latigo]

No, you do not have to pay him anything. BUT, yes he can condition his willingness to deed over his interest to you upon such price and terms as he chooses!

Just what is there about the fact that he separately owns an equal undivided interest in this time-share and the law that say he cannot be forced to part with it, that you seem to fail to understand or accept?

You can no more legally demand that he deed over to you his interest in the timeshare than you could compel any of the other timeshare owners to deed over their interest.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Neither has an obligation to reimburse the other.

Wrong again!!!

Regarding the cost of maintaining property, “[t]he general principle is that when one cotenant pays more than his share of taxes, mortgage payments, and other necessary expenses, equity imposes on each cotenant the duty to contribute his proportionate share.” Palanza v. Lufkin 804 A.2d 1141, 1145 (Me.,2002)

 

[JETX]

Wrong again!!!

Regarding the cost of maintaining property, “[t]he general principle is that when one cotenant pays more than his share of taxes, mortgage payments, and other necessary expenses, equity imposes on each cotenant the duty to contribute his proportionate share.” Palanza v. Lufkin 804 A.2d 1141, 1145 (Me.,2002)

Wow... and you were SO CLOSE to being correct for once.

The case you cite has nothing to do with "maintaince (sic) fees and the monthly payment" as stated by the OP.

If you had taken the time to actually READ the case, you would have seen that it was about the cost of actual OWNERSHIP and IMPROVEMENTS and both parties being TENANTS IN COMMON. We have no evidence of that form of ownership....

From the cite:
"Tenants in common . . . are presumed to own equal shares, but this presumption may be overcome by evidence, such as evidence of unequal initial contributions, establishing an intention to have unequal shares." Bradford v. Dumond, 675 A.2d 957, 961 (Me. 1996).
[There is no doubt here that they owned equal shares, but it what 'form'??]

"In the present case, the court did find that the parties had equal shares. The award is lopsided not because the court concluded that Palanza purchased more than a one-half interest in the property, but because the court offset Palanza's expenses for repairs and taxes."

"Regarding the cost of maintaining property, "[t]he general principle is that when one cotenant pays more than his share of taxes, mortgage payments, and other necessary expenses, equity imposes on each cotenant the duty to contribute his proportionate share." 59A Am. Jur. 2d Partition § 226 (1987); see, e.g., Biondo v. Powers, 743 So. 2d 161, 164 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (stating that a cotenant is entitled to a credit from the proceeds of a partition sale for his cotenant's share of the "obligations or expenses of the property, consisting of mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, and necessary repairs"). By contrast, when a cotenant makes improvements to the property, courts generally award that cotenant the resulting increase in the value of the estate, and not the actual cost of the improvements. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Hernandez, 645 So. 2d 171, 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (stating that a tenant who makes an improvement to property is entitled to "the additional amount which the property brings because of the improvement" upon a partition sale)."
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

So, with the above... the OP and her ex should pro-rata split the proceeds of the SALE of the property... with an offset to adjust for the increased costs of each parties payments to the whole. It would take an accountant to review the full DETAILS of who paid what and for what purpose.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Wow... and you were SO CLOSE to being correct for once.

Your laughable attempts at legal analysis never cease to amaze me.

 

[JETX]

Your laughable attempts at legal analysis never cease to amaze me.

From the ignorance you show in your posts, I would think that a shiny key or new dime would amaze you..... and probably distract you for hours on end.