Boyfriend is coowner of a house with his sister, he wants to sell but she doesn't
He needs to go see a lawyer to find out what all his options are, and the consequences of any of them. Then he needs to get help extricating himself from this situation, in whatever fashion he chooses: buyout, giveaway, what have you. This situation involves property, which involves money, so definitely get professional advice on this. Otherwise, 20 years from now, he could be hit with a bill for back taxes or what have you, if whatever he does, isn't done correctly and completely. The situation does stink, on ice. Either he's going to be the pissed-off party in this situation, or she is, or they both are...but there's money involved, and property involved, and at least one recalcitrant family member involved. Best case scenario, he writes up the story and sells the plot to Lifetime for a movie-of-the-week. (If I were in this situation, I would donate my half of the property to some charitable group, then have a lawyer send Sis a letter saying that it had been donated. Maybe even pick a charitable group aligned with Sis' interests, so that if Sis does want to try and negotiate with them to buy it out, she's giving the sales money to a group/cause that she believes in. But...then, it would No Longer Be My Problem. But that has consequences of its own, and your boyfriend needs to be aware of all of them, including any tax implications for him, before taking any such step.) It seems likely that the mortgage is not in your boyfriend's name because he never would have qualified if he can't even afford utilities after paying the mortgage. It also seems unfair that his sister continues to have a 50% share of the equity if your boyfriend has been making the entire payment on the mortgage every month. What would happen if your boyfriend stopped making the payments? His sister would have no choice if the property went into foreclosure. Your boyfriend has all the leverage he needs by simply refusing to continue making the payments. Why he won't push his sister to make a deal is the real question you need to ask him. In the meantime, if he wants out, all he has to do is decide not to keep paying whether his sister feels attached or not. How did the house pass to them? Was it held in Trust? Were they both jointly listed on the deed? If no to both, then the house should have gone into probate..assuming this is going on in the US...where the probate court would reassign ownership. Until this happens the house cannot be sold and is formally owned by the estate. I agree with the former post suggesting you find an estate attorney in the area to see if this dispute can be amicably settled. Tying it up in litigation will be EXPENSIVE and take a great deal of time Rent the property?? Is that a possible solution? Since selling the house is not an option and living in it isn't either, then perhaps renting it is the way to go? Since no explanation for the sister's motives is given, i'd speculate it is a mixture of emotional and financial concerns. Maybe mostly emotional. I imagine letting go of the one physical thing that has memories of you and your parents attached to it is very difficult. I don't think getting a lawyer or doing what's convenient for only your boyfriend is the way to go...But that's my own personal opinion. Clearly, he only has one close family member left alive. Creating permanent wounds in that relationship will cost more along the way. And quite frankly, if the house is owned 50-50, don't you need both owners to sign the deed to sell the house anyways? If renting is not an option, then maybe refinancing the mortgage to lower payments? Or Airbnb it only half the time? Or rent it out for events to help with payments? Or ask the sister for a little money...Not for half the mortgage, but at least a few hundred dollars to maintain the house and heat. If she is indeed concerned with the property, then maintaining it to prevent serious damagae is in her interests, no matter her income. "Time for a lawyer. Essentially, regardless of the situation ""it's not right"" for him to be paying the mortgage and only get half the value out of the equity in the house. All other things aside, no court I can think of would allow that. The ""could happens"" are many, but the most common include; Keep in mind that if he keeps paying the mortgage ling enough most courts will end up giving him ownership outright. Essentially, they will say he has already bought her out by paying her half of the debt.  Unfortunately, any way he goes he is going to need to take action. When there is a missed mortgage payment, a bad tax year, or some other legal issue (some one is injured on the property), the last thing he is going to want is for the courts to decide the issue for him. For example, John breaks an arm while climbing a tree on the property line. John takes the owners of the property to court. ""He"" says ""but my sister owns half"" and the courts decide then and there that because he's been paying the mortgage alone he owns the house alone. Seems like a win, except now he owns the liability alone, and owns John $1,000,000 for a silly lawsuit alone.  Point is this. Ownership of property comes with risks and responsibilities. ""He"" really needs to get those risks and responsibilities under control so he can mitigate them, or he could end up in a very nasty situation in the years to come." He doesn't have to follow through on this, but he could tell this sister that he will stop making mortgage payments, which will result in foreclosure and sale at lower price than might be realized by a voluntary sale. Translation: the house will sold, sis. Do you want to maximize your share of the proceeds?  And, as I said in a comment above: I hope that he is keeping careful records of mortgage an utility payments, as he might (should) be entitled to a refund from the proceeds of an eventual sale (possibly adjusted by the fair rent value of the time which he spent living there) "Dear ""benevolent"" sister, The mortgage, utilities, and taxes for this home can no longer be paid and the bank will repossess it within the coming months. Thank you for your time" "That ain't nothing.  It's really easy to get ""whipped up"" into a sense of entitlement, and forget to be grateful for what you do have.  If this house doesn't exist, what would his costs of housing be elsewhere?  Realistically.  Would landlords rent to him? Would other bankers lend him money to buy a house? Would those costs really be any better?  What about the intangible benefits like not having any landlord hassles or having a good relationship with the neighbors?  It's entirely possible he has a sweet deal here, and just doesn't make enough money.  If your credit rating is poor, your housing options really suck.  Banks won't lend you money for a house unless you have a huge ton of upfront cash.  Most landlords won't rent to you at all, because they are going to automated scoring systems to avoid accusations of racism.  In this day and age, there are lots of ways to make money with a property you own.  In fact, I believe very firmly in Robert Allen's doctrine: Never sell.  That way you avoid the tens of thousands of dollars of overhead costs you bear with every sale. That's pure profit gone up in smoke.  Keep the property forever, keep it working for you.  If he doesn't know how, learn.  To ""get bootstrapped"" he can put it up on AirBnB or other services. Or do ""housemate shares"".  When your house is not show-condition, just be very honest and relatable about the condition.  Don't oversell it, tell them exactly what they're going to get.  People like honesty in the social sharing economy.  And here's the important part: Don't booze away the new income, invest it back into the property to make it a better money-maker - better at AirBnB, better at housemate shares, better as a month-to-month renter. So it's too big - Is there a way to subdivide the unit to make it a better renter or AirBnB?  Can he carve out an ""in-law unit"" that would be a good size for him alone? If he can keep turning the money back into the property like that, he could do alright.  This is what the new sharing economy is all about.  Of course, sister might show up with her hand out, wanting half the revenue since it's half her house.  Tell her hell no, this pays the mortgage and you don't!  She deserves nothing, yet is getting half the equity from those mortgage payments, and that's enough, doggone it!  And if she wants to go to court, get a judge to tell her that.  Not that he's going to sell it, but it's a huge deal. He needs to know how much of his payments on the house are turning into real equity that belongs to him.   ""Owning it on paper"" doesn't mean you own it.  There's a mortgage on it, which means you don't own all of it.  The amount you own is the value of the house minus the mortgage owed.   This is called your equity.   Of course a sale also MINUS the costs of bringing the house up to mandatory code requirements,  MINUS the cost of cosmetically making the house presentable.   But when you actually sell, there's also the 6% Realtors' commission and other closing costs.  This is where the mortgage is more than the house is worth.  This is a dangerous situation.  If you keep the house and keep paying the mortgage all right, that is stable, and can be cheaper than the intense disruption and credit-rating shock of a foreclosure or short sale.  If sister is half owner, she'll get a credit burn also. That may be why she doesn't want to sell.  And that is leverage he has over her.  I imagine a ""Winter's bone"" (great movie) situation where the family is hanging on by a thread and hasn't told the bank the parents died.  That could get very complex especially if the brother/sister are not creditworthy, because that means the bank would simply call the loan and force a sale.   The upside is this won't result in a credit-rating burn or bankruptcy for the children, because they are not owners of the house and children do not inherit parents' debt."
Can he legally break your lease if he sells the place?  If not I would just keep renting. It doesn't sound like you love the house and you plan on moving or would prefer a different type of place long term. Unless you yourself plan on getting involved in being a renting it out to others in the future - just rent and move on at some point. If he can break your lease upon sale of the property then I'd be casually keeping an eye out for another place to rent if that happens. "Sister is putting down nothing, and paying sub-market rent. It looks to me like if she is assigned anything, it's a gift.  You on the other hand, have put down the full downpayment, and instead of breaking even via fair rent, are feeding the property to the tune of $645/mo.  In the old days, the days of Robert Allen's ""no money down"" it was common to see shared equity deals where the investor would put up the down payment, get 1/2 the equity build up, and never pay another dime. This deal reminds me of that, only you are getting the short end of the stick.  ""you never think something will cause discourse"" - I hope you meant this sarcastically. The deal you describe? No good can come of it." The first and most important thing to consider is that this is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION, and needs to be treated as such. Nail down Absolutely All The Details, specifically including what happens if either of you decides it's time to move and wants to sell off your share of the property. Get at least one lawyer involved in drawing up that contract, perhaps two so there's no risk of conflict of interest. What's your recourse, or his, if the other stops making their share of the payments? Who's responsible for repairs and upkeep? If you make renovations, how does that affect the ownership percentage, and what kind of approval do you need from him first, and how do you get it, and how quickly does he have to respond? If he wants to do something to maintain his investment, such as reroofing, how does he negotiate that with you -- especially if it's something that requires access to the inside of the house? Who is the insurance paid by, or will each of you be insuring it separately? What are the tax implications? Consider EVERY possible outcome; the fact that you're friends now doesn't matter, and in fact arguments over money are one of the classic things that kill friendships. I'd be careful making this deal with a relative (though in fact I did loan my brother a sizable chunk of change to help him bridge between his old house and new house, and that's registered as a mortgage to formalize it). I'd insist on formalizing who owns what even with a spouse, since marriages don't always last. With someone who's just a co-worker and casual friend, it's business and only business, and needs to be both evaluated and contracted as such to protect both of you. If you can't make an agreement that you'd be reasonably comfortable signing with a stranger, think long and hard about whether you want to sign it at all. I'll also point out that nobody is completely safe from long-term unemployment. The odds may be low, but people do get blindsided. The wave of foreclosures during and after the recent depression is direct evidence of that. With no agreement in place, the other person can go after half the equity in the house. In my opinion, wanting their down payment back seems reasonable. "Not sure what you are talking about.  The house isn't part of a business so neither of you can deduct half of normal maintenance and repairs.  It is just the cost of having a house.   The only time this would be untrue is if the thing that you are buying for the house is part of a special deduction or rebate for that tax year.  For instance the US has been running rebates and deductions on certain household items that reduce energy - namely insulation, windows, doors, and heating/cooling systems (much more but those are the normal things). And in actuality if your brother is using the entire house as a living quarters you should be charging him some sort of rent.  The rent could be up to the current monthly market price of the home minus 50%.  If it were my family I would probably charge them what I would pay for a 3% loan on the house minus 50%.   Going back to the repairs... Really if these repairs are upgrades and not things caused by using the house and ""breaking"" or ""wearing"" things you should be paying half of this, as anything that contributes to the increased property value should be paid for equally if you both are expecting to take home 50% a piece once you sell it." "Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did ""not amount to much"" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share. Conclusion: Don't make assumptions, consider posting a question on https://law.stackexchange.com/ , consider legal advice, and consider having a formal contract in place which states the exact intentions of the parties. It is a general principle of these kinds of cases that the parties need to have intended for the person lacking legal title to acquire a beneficial interest, and proof to the contrary should make such a claim likely to fail.  Alternatively, decide that the risk is low and that it's not worth worrying about. But make a considered decision either way." "I will expand on Bacon's comment. When you are married, and you acquire any kind of property, you automatically get a legal agreement.  In most states that property is owned jointly and while there are exceptions that is the case most of the time.   When you are unmarried, there is no such assumption of joint acquisition.  While words might be said differently between the two parties, if there is nothing written down and signed then courts will almost always assume that only one party owns the property.  Now unmarried people go into business all the time, but they do so by creating legally binding agreements that cover contingencies.  If you two do proceed with this plan, it is necessary to create those documents with the help of a lawyer.  Although expensive paying for this protection is a small price in relation to what will probably be one of the largest purchases in your lives. However, I do not recommend this.  If Clayton can and wants to buy a home he should.  Emma can rent from Clayton.  That rent could any amount the two agree on, including zero.  If the two do get married, well then Emma will end up owning any equity after that date.  If they stay together until death, it is likely that she (or her heirs) will own half of it anyway.  Also if this house is sold, the equity pass into larger house they buy after marriage, then that will be owned jointly. If they do break up, the break up is clean and neat.  Presumably she would have paid rent anyway, so nothing is lost.  Many people run into trouble having to sell at a bad time in a relationship that coincides with a weak housing market.  In that case, both parties lose.   So much like Bacon's advice I would not buy jointly.  There is no upside, and you avoid a lot of downside. Don't play ""house"" by buying a home jointly when you are unmarried." "I am not a lawyer nor a tax accountant, so if such chimes in here I'll gladly defer. But my understanding is:  If you're romantically involved and living together you're considered a ""household"" and thus your finances are deemed shared for tax purposes. Any money your partner gives you toward paying the bills is not considered ""rent"" but ""her contribution to household expenses"". (I don't know the genders but I'll call your partner ""her"" for convenience.) This is not income and is not taxed. On the off chance that the IRS actually investigated your arrangement, don't call any money she gives you ""rent"": call it ""her contribution to living expenses"". If you were two (or more) random people sharing a condo purely for economic reasons, i.e. you are not a family in any sense but each of you would have trouble affording a place on your own, it's common for all the room mates to share the rent or mortgage, utilities, etc, but for one person to collect all the money and write one check to the landlord, etc. Tax law does not see this as the person who writes the check collecting rent from the others, it's just a book-keeping convenience, and so there is no taxable transaction. (Of course the landlord owes taxes on the rental income, but that's not your problem.) In that case it likely would be different if one person outright owned the place and really was charging the others rent. But then he could claim deductions for all the expenses of maintaining it, including depreciation, so if it really was a case of room mates sharing expenses, the taxable income would likely be just about zero anyway. So short answer: If you really are a ""couple"", there are no taxable transactions here. If the IRS should actually question it, don't refer to it as ""collecting rent"" or any other words that imply this is a business arrangement. Describe it as a couple sharing expenses. (People sometimes have created tax problems for themselves by their choice of words in an audit.) But the chance that you would ever be audited over something like this is probably remote. I suppose that if at some point you break up, but you continue to live together for financial reasons (or whatever reasons), that could transform this into a business relationship and that would change my answer." I second (or fifth?) the answers of the other users in that this should have been foreseen and discussed prior to entering the partnership.  But to offer a potential solution: If the mortgage company allows you to assume the whole mortgage (big if) you could buy the other partner out. To determine what a fair buyout would be, take the current value of the house less the remaining mortgage to get the current equity. Half that is each partner's current gain (or potentially loss), and could be considered a fair buyout. At this point the partner realizes any gains made in the last 5 years, and from now on the whole house (and any future gains or losses) will be yours. Alternatively your partner could remain a full partner (if s/he so desires) until the house sells. You would see the house as a separate business, split the cost as you have, and you would pay fair market rent each month (half of which would come back to you). A third option would be to refinance the house, with you as a sole mortgage holder. To factor in how much your partner should receive out of the transaction, you can take his/her current equity and subtract half of the costs associated with the refi. I would also recommend both of you seek out the help of a real estate lawyer at this point to help you draft an agreement. It sounds like you're still on good terms, so you could see a lawyer together; this would be helpful because they should know all the things you should look out for in a situation like this. Good luck! The simplest way to handle this is for you to rent the apartment and sublet to the girlfriend and friend.  I'd split the utilities evenly, one-third from each.  The reason for this is that each of you contribute evenly to generating the utility bills.  It's not like your income makes the water cost more for you.   Utilities are driven by usage.  Dividing them other than equally is likely to lead to more problems than it solves.  Also, it seems unlikely that a different apartment would use significantly different water, electricity, or internet.  Those are driven by the appliances rather than the size or location of the apartment.  Only pay more for the utilities if you want something that they don't.  For example, maybe you want HBO, etc.  It would be reasonable for you to pay the entire premium if that's a luxury that they simply wouldn't buy.   I'd also divide the groceries evenly if you share and share alike.  If you eat separate meals, you can buy separate groceries.   If the rent can't be split evenly but you could afford it alone, then you can just sign up for it.  If you break up with the girlfriend and/or the friend moves out, you're still fine.  You have your fancy apartment and can afford it.   The bigger problem comes if you can't afford the apartment without both the girlfriend and friend contributing.  If so, you should probably avoid this situation.  It's fragile.  Any person leaving would put you in a financially untenable position.  You can look for a new tenant to replace your friend, but you can't exactly rely on getting a new move-in girlfriend on demand.   Neither the girlfriend nor the friend can afford to be on the main lease.  In case of emergency or tragedy, they couldn't replace you as a tenant.  That's why they should sublet.  Then their obligation is to you, not to the landlord.   How much apartment would the girlfriend and friend get if you weren't involved?  What rents would they pay?  That's probably how much rent they should pay for this apartment.  You want a better apartment (or a better location)?  That's on you.   You should only do this if you want to do it.  If you want to share apartments with the girlfriend and friend, then do so.  Work out something equitable.  If you plan on moving in together to reduce your costs, then you don't sound like you are compatible.  Obviously there are reasons to move in with the girlfriend aside from costs.  Why can't the friend get his or her own place?  The added rent probably won't do more than pay for the added room (you could get a one bedroom without the friend).   That points to an alternative way of calculating the friend's contribution:  the difference between a two bedroom and a one bedroom apartment.  That's the additional cost of the bigger apartment.  If the friend can't afford that, then this might not be a good idea.   Make sure that you can afford the apartment if one or both of the friend and girlfriend move out.  You can eventually replace the friend as the tenant but don't rely on doing the same with the girlfriend.  Share utilities evenly.  Possibly groceries too.  The friend should pay at least the added cost of the additional bedroom.  Don't expect either to pay more in the new apartment than they would pay without you.  You should be the only one on the main lease; sublet to them. Trying to forcefully reclaim the money will ruin the relationship.  In general it's bad practice to loan money to family. Definitely get a lawyer to write up all the details of the partnership in a formal agreement. If your ex does not want to do this, that is a bad sign. You both need to be clear about expectations and responsibilities in this partnership, and define an exit strategy in the case one of you wants out. This is the most fair to both parties. Generally, what is common is that property is split cleanly when the relationship ends. I would strongly recommend you both work towards a clean split with no joint property ownership. How this looks depends on your unique situation. To address your questions 2 and 3: You have two roles here - tenant and owner.  As a 50% owner, you are running a business with a partner.  That business will have assets (home), income, expenses, and profit. You basically need to run this partnership as a simple business.  All the rent income (your rent and the other tenant's) should go into a separate account. The mortgage and all other housing expenses are then paid from only this account. Any excess is then profit that may be split 50/50. All expenses should be agreed upon by both of you, either by contract or by direct communication. You should see a financial professional to make sure accounting and taxes are set up properly. Under this system, your ex could do work on the house and be paid from the business income. However, they are responsible to you to provide an estimate and scope of work, just like any other contractor. If you as a joint owner agree to his price, he then could be paid out of the business income. This reduces the business cash flow for the year accordingly. You can probably see how this can get very complicated very fast. There is really no right or wrong answer on what both of you decide is fair and best. For the sake of simplicity and the least chance of a disaster, the usual and recommended action is to cleanly split all property. Good Luck! If the house is titled to the estate, neither of you own the house and it cannot be mortgaged. Executor of the will is supposed to provide to you and to the probate court periodic reports as to what is going on. Check them up and talk to your probate lawyer. In this case can the title of the home still be held by both? Yes, it is possible to have additional people on title that are not on the mortgage. Would the lender (bank) have any reservations about this since a party not on the mortgage has ownership of the property? Possibly, but there is a very simple way to avoid this. Clayton could simply purchase the home himself, and add Emma to the title after closing by recording a quitclaim deed. The lender can't stop that, and from their point of view it's actually better, since they have two people to go after in the case of default. (But despite it being better they often make it difficult to purchase Tip, when you have an attorney draft the quitclaim document, have them draft the reverse document too. (Emma relinquishing the property back to Clayton.) There is usually no extra charge for this and then you have it if you need it. For example, you may need to file the reverse forms if you want to refinance. As a side note, I agree with  Grade 'Eh' Bacon's and Pete B.'s in recommending that Clayton and Emma do not do this. Once they are married the property will either be automatically jointly owned, or a spouse can be added to the title easily, and until they are married there are no pros but many cons to doing this. Reasons not to do it: As a side note, in a comment it was proposed: ...suppose Clayton loves Emma so much that he wants her name to be on the house... I understand the desire to do this from an emotional point of view, but realize this does not make sense from a financial point of view. It's not typically possible for someone to jointly own the house, who is not also jointly liable for the mortgage. This doesn't matter however, because it is possible for two people to get a mortgage together, where only one person's income is assessed by the lender. If that person could get a mortgage of that amount on their own, then the couple should also be able to get the same mortgage. Source: My wife and I got a mortgage like this. She is self-employed, rather than meet the very high requirements for proving her self-employment income, we simply said that we only wanted my income to be taken into consideration.