Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

  • Announcements

    • Rick

      Members Only Fluid Forum View   08/08/2017

      Fluid forum view allows members only to get right to the meat of this community; the topics. You can toggle between your preferred forum view just below to the left on the main forum entrance. You will see three icons. Try them out and see what you prefer.   Fluid view allows you, if you are a signed up member, to see the newest topic posts in either all forums (select none or all) or in just your favorite forums (select the ones you want to see when you come to Fishing Minnesota). It keeps and in real time with respect to Topic posts and lets YOU SELECT YOUR FAVORITE FORUMS. It can make things fun and easy. This is especially true for less experienced visitors raised on social media. If you, as a members want more specific topics, you can even select a single forum to view. Let us take a look at fluid view in action. We will then break it down and explain how it works in more detail.   The video shows the topic list and the forum filter box. As you can see, it is easy to change the topic list by changing the selected forums. This view replaces the traditional list of categories and forums.   Of course, members only can change the view to better suit your way of browsing.   You will notice a “grid” option. We have moved the grid forum theme setting into the main forum settings. This makes it an option for members only to choose. This screenshot also shows the removal of the forum breadcrumb in fluid view mode. Fluid view remembers your last forum selection so you don’t lose your place when you go back to the listing. The benefit of this feature is easy to see. It removes a potential barrier of entry for members only. It puts the spotlight on topics themselves, and not the hierarchical forum structure. You as a member will enjoy viewing many forums at once and switching between them without leaving the page. We hope that fluid view, the new functionality is an asset that you enjoy .
Sign in to follow this  
Moose-Hunter

Real Estate Question...

Recommended Posts

Moose-Hunter

Howdy All...

Two people (A & B) are deeded half ownership in a property. Party "A" holds the mortgage. Party "B" has only been deeded half the property and their name is not on the mortgage.

Party "A" hates party "B" and wants out of the property ownership, but wants to get their 50% value out of the property... Party "B" does not want to sell, or buy out party "A"...

What can party "A" do to get the heck out of this deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobT

One option, depending on how badly they want out, is to deed their ownership to the other party. Sucks but if they want out bad enough, that is one option.

Is it possible for Party A to sell their portion to someone else and if so, does Party B have any say in the matter?

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LABS4ME

If it is like any partnership contract... Party A gives 'right of 1st refusal' to Party B, if Party B denies a purchase agreement, Party A can then sell off his intrest to any other Party that would like to take ownership without regard to Party B's desires... The other option is a fair and equitable sale of the entire property with the disbursements split 50-50...

Good Luck!

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

Quote:

One option, depending on how badly they want out, is to deed their ownership to the other party. Sucks but if they want out bad enough, that is one option.

Is it possible for Party A to sell their portion to someone else and if so, does Party B have any say in the matter?


Hi Bob...

Yes this one is a bit on the sticky side.

Party "A" has quite a bit of moola invested in this property, being the original/sole mortgage holder. Down payment, most of the monthly's, property upgrades... We're talking in the 45K range (+/-).

The Reader's digest version...

Party "A" came on some hard times financially, and party "B" , had the cash, and bailed party "A" out with the mortgage company in exchange for 50% deeded ownership. Party "A" was, and still remains, the only name on the mortgage since party "B" couldn't borrow a hose if they were on fire... (I don't think party "B" will EVER have the financially ability to get the funds necessary to buy out "A"...) Sorry, I digress...

Party "A" and "B" have since parted company and the deed is all that's binding them together. Party "B" still resides on the property and has been making the monthly payment for a little while now.

Party "A" is "okay" with party "B" becoming sole owner IF some form of financial settlement can be worked out.

Party "A" only wants a fair "cut" of the value and is actually willing to deal on their half of the deed for way below market rates. Party "B" is not willing to either sign off on the total sale of this property and split the proceeds or to buy out party "A"'s half ownership.

Party "A" feels that they have a substantial financial interest in this property and will probably not just "walk away" from it.

If party "A" could sell their half to someone... Anyone who is able to buy, GREAT!!! It would happen in a heartbeat.

If party "A" could force the complete sale of the property... Even better as this would send party "B" packin'...

Confidence is "high" that party "B" is the planning stages with some kind of legal "abandonment" thing to "take" the property from party "A"... Is this possible?

Without a partition action, what can party "A" do to get some value from the property?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!!! Real Estate folks? Lawyers? Anyone? Bueller?

If you's like to write me directly, I'll make sure party "A" gets the messages... northernstaroutfitters at yahoo (Contact Us Please)... wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric Wettschreck

It's lookin like the party of the first part and the party of the second part will never group hug and make up and sing koombyah around the camp fire.

Soooooooo, I guess if boilerguy were either party he'd be looking at hiring a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

Quote:

It's lookin like the party of the first part and the party of the second part will never group hug and make up and sing koombyah around the camp fire.

Soooooooo, I guess if boilerguy were either party he'd be looking at hiring a lawyer.


No sir!!! No camp fires for these two. Group hugs ain't gonna happen either...

I'm sure lawyers will be in the mix shortly... Just looking for a little insight...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nofishfisherman

Sounds like a sticky situation for sure.

I am not sure about the laws involved and all the legal mumbo jumbo but since party B is not named as an owner he probably doesn't have alot of recourse to get the property without buying party A's share.

Am I reading it right that party B stepped in to help out in a tough time and in exchange for the money party A verbally committed half ownership of the property to him? If party A did this and they want to sell the property they should give party B first crack at buying it and if he doesn't want it then party A should have full right to sell it and give half the money to party B. It seems logical that if party A is the only one listed as owner they are the only one that should need to approve sale of the property.

Is the 50-50 agreement between party A and B on paper anywhere or just verbal with a handshake?

Personally I say party A should sell it and just give party B half the money. Party B shouldn't be able to say to much about it since he isn't legally an owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

Quote:

Sounds like a sticky situation for sure.

I am not sure about the laws involved and all the legal mumbo jumbo but since party B is not named as an owner he probably doesn't have alot of recourse to get the property without buying party A's share.

Am I reading it right that party B stepped in to help out in a tough time and in exchange for the money party A verbally committed half ownership of the property to him? If party A did this and they want to sell the property they should give party B first crack at buying it and if he doesn't want it then party A should have full right to sell it and give half the money to party B. It seems logical that if party A is the only one listed as owner they are the only one that should need to approve sale of the property.

Is the 50-50 agreement between party A and B on paper anywhere or just verbal with a handshake?

Personally I say party A should sell it and just give party B half the money. Party B shouldn't be able to say to much about it since he isn't legally an owner.


Thanks folks for all the info thus far...

This is the place where the mud gets even deeper...

Party "B" would not help out party "A" unless it was put on paper. So yes there is a quit claim deed with both of their names on it... The documents that do NOT have party "B"s name anywhere on them is the mortgage.

Deed yes, mortgage no...

I'm in complete agreement with you... The property should be sold, with the proceeds gettting split 50/50 and giving party "B" first crack at the purchase...

How would the outstanding debt with the mortgage company be staisfied and how would party "A" get their "cut"?

Sounds to me that party "B" would have to buy the property outright, take on a new loan, pay off the outstanding debt and the remainder (or a set amount) would then be distributed to party "A"...

I know the Eagles got back together and that was a "sure thing" compared to these two coming to any type of understanding. The above scenerio would take an agreement from both sides and that's NOT gonna happen as neither one trusts the other... As told to me... "No, not even a little bit"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toonfish

I believe in the State of Minnesota....the law comes down to the simple concept of.....It takes one to buy and two to sell. Meaning A can be on the mortgage alone, and buy the property alone and add B to the deed. But, in order to sell both parties (A and B)have to agree. Usually in a divorce situation, if the husband or wife wants to stay in the property that party has to refinance in order to pay off the other. The refinance is usually forced by the judge and has to be completed within a certain amount of time. If kids are involved then the timeframe for refinance and buyout can become pushed back until the kids reach a certain age. Maybe more information than you need, but this is my take on the law and process and I have watched it first hand many times as a Mortgage Broker. So in your situation it sounds like this sale or buyout needs to be pushed by a judge. Just my thoughts, not sure it is exactly correct. Ohhh, and if party B is unable to obtain financing to buyout party A within the time required by the judge, then party A has the right to sell to a third party by putting the house on the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nofishfisherman

Is anyone else wondering what happend between A and B to create such a messy situation?

If I were party A I would be contacting a lawyer ASAP. A lawyer can be pricey but in some cases they are worth every penny and this seems like just that sort of case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric Wettschreck

I'm just darn glad I'm neither party A or B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

Quote:

I'm just darn glad I'm neither party A or B.


Me too!!! It's a VERY stinky situation and thankfully, I'm just an innocent bystander...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

Quote:

Is anyone else wondering what happend between A and B to create such a messy situation?

If I were party A I would be contacting a lawyer ASAP. A lawyer can be pricey but in some cases they are worth every penny and this seems like just that sort of case.


You echo my advice exactly.... As for what caused this.... Man, let me tell you... You REALLY don't want to know the nasty details... I wish I didn't... crazy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BuckRuttinFool

The question right now is who is paying on the mortgage now? Party A or B or both.....If it is a quit claim deed there is probably a clause in there that states that if party A stops paying the mortgage he forfeits his half of the mortgage to B and this means he's out the whole works.....this protects party B's money interest in the mortgage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heidi

Toonfish has hit the nail right on the head. A formal buy/sell agreement should have been in place before "B"

ever gave any money. Without one in place, the two parties have to mutually decide on things, or else a judge will have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice Cold

Do you know if the property is held in joint tenancy or tenancy in common? It should be on the quit claim deed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfv87

Quote:

Toonfish has hit the nail right on the head. A formal buy/sell agreement should have been in place before "B"

ever gave any money. Without one in place, the two parties have to mutually decide on things, or else a judge will have to.


This is more of the issue. Without a buy/sell agreement it is open to interpretation of each party (most likely slanting in their favor). Without a that agreement Litigation may be the only solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hartner62

Quick question for party "A" How has party "B" been making the payments? Cash/check to you and then you send it in or B sends it in themselves. Sounds like you have a contract for deed and most have a clause in them saying if they are late on payments to you, you have the right to boot them out. Is the property 2 different parcels now or still 1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toonfish

I didn't see anything about a contract for deed....Did I miss it? because that would change alot of the issues into party A's favor.....But I think all that is in place and has been executed is a quit claim deed. With a quit claim deed it doesn't matter who or how the payments are made, it just places both parties on title and there lies the problem. Both are on title, but do not agree on what should be done with the property. This will probably have to end up in front of a judge to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

Quote:

The question right now is who is paying on the mortgage now? Party A or B or both.....If it is a quit claim deed there is probably a clause in there that states that if party A stops paying the mortgage he forfeits his half of the mortgage to B and this means he's out the whole works.....this protects party B's money interest in the mortgage.


WOW!!! What a stinky can of worms. eh?

Party "B" has been paying the mortgage as he is the one that resides on the property after forcing party "A" to leave. I have the quit claim deed in my gloved hand and there is no clause in regards to non-payment. As I stated earlier, party "A" is the only person on the mortgage papers. Party "B" just sends the mortgage company money. And not regularly I might add... shocked.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

Quote:

Toonfish has hit the nail right on the head. A formal buy/sell agreement should have been in place before "B"

ever gave any money. Without one in place, the two parties have to mutually decide on things, or else a judge will have to.


From what I know, no buy/sell agreement was ever in place. These two parties are never going to agree on anything, let alone on the sale/possession of the property... I fear legal action is going to be the only way to resolution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

Quote:

Do you know if the property is held in joint tenancy or tenancy in common? It should be on the quit claim deed.


According to the deed that I have seen, "joint tenants" is the wording...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

Quote:

Quick question for party "A" How has party "B" been making the payments? Cash/check to you and then you send it in or B sends it in themselves. Sounds like you have a contract for deed and most have a clause in them saying if they are late on payments to you, you have the right to boot them out. Is the property 2 different parcels now or still 1?


Party "B" has been making payments directly to the mortgage company via a sent in money orders... If there were a "late payment" clause anywhere in this whole mess, party "B" would have been sent packin' a long time ago... The property is a single "parcel"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

Quote:

I didn't see anything about a contract for deed....Did I miss it? because that would change alot of the issues into party A's favor.....But I think all that is in place and has been executed is a quit claim deed. With a quit claim deed it doesn't matter who or how the payments are made, it just places both parties on title and there lies the problem. Both are on title, but do not agree on what should be done with the property. This will probably have to end up in front of a judge to decide.


toonfish... You didn't miss a thing... As far as I know there was no contract for deed, only a quit claim. We have yet to check on the actual title... Where would I look or who would I contact on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose-Hunter

I would like to thank each and everyone who has posted thus far!!! Although some of the info was already known, the rest has given party "A" a few more ideas and possibly an extra avenue or two towards "freedom"...

Please... If anyone else can add to this, please post!!!

Thanks so very much!!! cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  



  • Posts

    • workin4bait
      I seen in the  paper it will be at Leech lake again this year.
    • KidMoe
      I was worried about the wire size too. Thanks ProV. I guess I can’t avoid it. 
    • fishingstar
      you don't have any wires on your 7 pin plug that is heavy enough.  
    • PRO-V
      I would run wire straight to the battery with an in line fuse at the battery and use a separate 2 prong connector at the trailer.
    • kelly-p
      Unfortunately they have not found them yet. Freeze up  with the thin ice has really hampered the search. Too much ice for boats and not enough to travel on. As the ice thickens the searchers are working their way deeper. Such a sad situation.
    • KidMoe
      I’m hoping I can get some advice from you fine folks. I’m looking to install a small electric winch on my snowmobile trailer to load my skid house. I’m wondering if I can power it off the 7 pin connector?  From what I can find, my truck is fused at 10 amp and most of the winches I’m finding pull somewhere around 50 to 60 amps at 1500 lbs or so. I’m wondering what I could do to still run it off the 7 pin. Do I need to add a battery? Maybe a capacitor? i appreciate any thoughts you might have!
    • Cliff Wagenbach
      I spotted them also this evening out from McKinley. A few more days yet before I will give it a try! Cliff
    • Spearing Machine
      First fisherman seen trying their luck today out from McKinley park access and Stuntz Bay access. 
    • Wanderer
      Definitely not surprised with this change. One might as well license the wheel house anyway.  Keeping it legally “occupied” is a pain just to avoid buying the license.
    • Rick
      A public meeting to discuss a draft transition plan for Hill Annex Mine State Park will take place Thursday, Nov. 30, from 4 to 6 p.m. at the Calumet City Hall, 932 Gary St., Calumet. Legislation in 2017 guided five local partners (DNR, Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board, Itasca County, City of Calumet and the Western Mesabi Mine Planning Board) to work on an alternate operating model for local management and operation of the Hill Annex Mine. The work group has concluded that operation of the site as a park under any jurisdiction is extremely unlikely and is proposing a feasibility study to explore other local economic development opportunities that preserve the history of Hill Annex Mine, promote existing amenities along the Mesabi Trail, and better connect the cities of Calumet and Marble. At the public meeting, the work group will hold a facilitated discussion to review feedback on the draft project report. The report will be submitted to the 2018 Legislature. Interested members of the public are welcome to attend and participate in the discussion. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.