Real Estate Question...

[Moose-Hunter]

Howdy All...

Two people (A & 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?

[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

[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

[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)...

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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"...

[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.

[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.

[Eric Wettschreck]

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

[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...

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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"...

[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?

[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!!!

[BuckRuttinFool]

since it shows joint tenancy why doesn't Owner A just move into the same house or shack that owner B lives in....and of course bring all the kids and nieces and nephews and family pets.....ect....play the game and drive him out.

[nofishfisherman]

Don't forget to bring a whole herd of ankle biting dogs along. Enough of them will send any man packing.

[Moose-Hunter]

Quote:

---

since it shows joint tenancy why doesn't Owner A just move into the same house or shack that owner B lives in....and of course bring all the kids and nieces and nephews and family pets.....ect....play the game and drive him out.

---

LOL!!! Funny you should mention this... Party "B" has already done that... Kids, their kids, pets... You name it... No room left at that "motel"... and party "A" wouldn't go back there even at gun point...

[Moose-Hunter]

Quote:

---

Don't forget to bring a whole herd of ankle biting dogs along. Enough of them will send any man packing.

---

I'm about to bust a gut laughing!!!! What kind of dogs do you think this yutz has? when party "B" takes them for walks, it's rats on strings baby!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!

[luckey]

I really enjoyed reading this. Not that I wish trouble on anyone but it's interesting to see the pickle people get into. I have a question. How could party A get a mortgage if party B has an intrest in the property. Normally you sign documents indicating no one else has an intrest in the property when you get a mortgage.