selling a house over one party's objection
October 10, 2006 2:41 PM Subscribe
Please to advise a friend on how she might get out of a situation where she owns a house with an ex who does not share her goal of a clean severance.
Going to try to make a long story short...
A friend of mine broke up with a guy (they were not married, and Washington is not a common-law state) that she owned a house with. As part of their separation agreement, they signed a contract (along with a third-party who was going to do some fix-up work for a share of the profit). This contract spelled out that she agreed to pay 1/3 of the mortgage and move out, he would pay 2/3 of the mortgage and stay (yes, not an equitable deal, and one she regrets, but these were the terms). Both their names are on the title and mortgage, and he would pay her the 2/3 and she would pay the total to the mortgage holder. Within two months, he stopped paying her, allowed other people to move into the house, and all work on the house ceased.
He is becoming increasingly disruptive and unwilling to work with her and unwilling to make suggestions of his own. He's also unemployed.
She has now had it with the situation and wants out. What are her options? Can this be done without a lawyer? Neither one has much money so it is unlikely one can buy the other out. Can she force a selling with one unwilling partner? Can she force him out of a house because of the breach of contract? Any and all advice would be appreciated. Also, if someone can recommend an attorney familiar with Washington State law that would be appreciated as well.
Going to try to make a long story short...
A friend of mine broke up with a guy (they were not married, and Washington is not a common-law state) that she owned a house with. As part of their separation agreement, they signed a contract (along with a third-party who was going to do some fix-up work for a share of the profit). This contract spelled out that she agreed to pay 1/3 of the mortgage and move out, he would pay 2/3 of the mortgage and stay (yes, not an equitable deal, and one she regrets, but these were the terms). Both their names are on the title and mortgage, and he would pay her the 2/3 and she would pay the total to the mortgage holder. Within two months, he stopped paying her, allowed other people to move into the house, and all work on the house ceased.
He is becoming increasingly disruptive and unwilling to work with her and unwilling to make suggestions of his own. He's also unemployed.
She has now had it with the situation and wants out. What are her options? Can this be done without a lawyer? Neither one has much money so it is unlikely one can buy the other out. Can she force a selling with one unwilling partner? Can she force him out of a house because of the breach of contract? Any and all advice would be appreciated. Also, if someone can recommend an attorney familiar with Washington State law that would be appreciated as well.
I would start documenting the breaches of contract as well formal written protests.
posted by xammerboy at 3:05 PM on October 10, 2006
posted by xammerboy at 3:05 PM on October 10, 2006
Yikes! Yes, said to say, I think this is lawyer time for sure. This is not a situation in which you want to risk doing it any other way. :(
posted by litlnemo at 3:14 PM on October 10, 2006
posted by litlnemo at 3:14 PM on October 10, 2006
I second xammerboy, document everything in excruciating detail. Dates, places, names, timelines, as much as you can.
It is my entirely useless and mostly unfounded understanding that yes, one party can force a sale. Lawyer up.
posted by Skorgu at 3:19 PM on October 10, 2006
It is my entirely useless and mostly unfounded understanding that yes, one party can force a sale. Lawyer up.
posted by Skorgu at 3:19 PM on October 10, 2006
First of all, what jellicle said times a million.
Secondly: Neither one has much money so it is unlikely one can buy the other out.
Sorry, but isn't that exactly what he promised to do 2+ months ago, buy her out to the extent that 1/3 of the mortgage value differs from her equity in the place? So he'd better find a way to buy her out (to this limited extent) since that was the whole point of the agreement.
Thirdly: Can she force a selling with one unwilling partner?
In general yes, there is a device called "suing for partition" that might apply to this situation. Essentially it's, you guessed it, a lawsuit asking the judge to force a sale of the commonly owned property since the co-owners can't agree on a way to divide it so that one owner's interest can be transfered.
posted by rkent at 3:28 PM on October 10, 2006
Secondly: Neither one has much money so it is unlikely one can buy the other out.
Sorry, but isn't that exactly what he promised to do 2+ months ago, buy her out to the extent that 1/3 of the mortgage value differs from her equity in the place? So he'd better find a way to buy her out (to this limited extent) since that was the whole point of the agreement.
Thirdly: Can she force a selling with one unwilling partner?
In general yes, there is a device called "suing for partition" that might apply to this situation. Essentially it's, you guessed it, a lawsuit asking the judge to force a sale of the commonly owned property since the co-owners can't agree on a way to divide it so that one owner's interest can be transfered.
posted by rkent at 3:28 PM on October 10, 2006
She needs a a partition lawsuit for which she needs a lawyer, as others have said.
posted by TheRaven at 3:29 PM on October 10, 2006
posted by TheRaven at 3:29 PM on October 10, 2006
You don't explicitly say it, but I assume the mortgage specifies that they are jointly and severally liable for payments? That makes it difficult for her to do much besides suing somebody. Unless the guy is cooperative, action without a lawyer will be difficult. She should definitely get one, in case you're not tired of hearing it yet.
Just for the hell of it, though... It's unclear from your description, but assuming that their ownership was a tenancy in common, your friend might be able to sell her share (that is, her interest in the property) and assign the agreement to the buyer. Based on what you've said, I imagine it would have to be a quixotic buyer with a stable of attorneys and an inflated love of legal pugilism, but there you go.
For what it's worth, I think you mean that Washington does not recognize common law marriages. It does recognize common law. (Unlike Louisiana.)
posted by averyoldworld at 3:33 PM on October 10, 2006
Just for the hell of it, though... It's unclear from your description, but assuming that their ownership was a tenancy in common, your friend might be able to sell her share (that is, her interest in the property) and assign the agreement to the buyer. Based on what you've said, I imagine it would have to be a quixotic buyer with a stable of attorneys and an inflated love of legal pugilism, but there you go.
For what it's worth, I think you mean that Washington does not recognize common law marriages. It does recognize common law. (Unlike Louisiana.)
posted by averyoldworld at 3:33 PM on October 10, 2006
This is so incredibly messy. I'd love to know why there is a third party signing the contract (it implies the contractor was/is being paid with equity in the property, something I've never heard of, though I tend to stay on the sane side of real estate transactions), they'll need to be dealt with as well (!).
Knowing Seattle real estate, this isn't likely, but is it at all conceivable she can come up with either a chunk of money + release of interest in the property, or simply releasing all interest by itself, that will let her walk away? I assume that everyone thought they were going to make a killing once the work was done, maybe the prospect of tying the property up indefinitely in a lawsuit which might bring on foreclosure will bring Mr. Charming around to doing the right thing. The contractor might be a positive force in this negotiation if he perceives your friend's solution getting him paid vs. sticking with the boyfriend.
No matter what her course of action, she needs a lawyer, post-haste.
posted by maxwelton at 4:54 PM on October 10, 2006
Knowing Seattle real estate, this isn't likely, but is it at all conceivable she can come up with either a chunk of money + release of interest in the property, or simply releasing all interest by itself, that will let her walk away? I assume that everyone thought they were going to make a killing once the work was done, maybe the prospect of tying the property up indefinitely in a lawsuit which might bring on foreclosure will bring Mr. Charming around to doing the right thing. The contractor might be a positive force in this negotiation if he perceives your friend's solution getting him paid vs. sticking with the boyfriend.
No matter what her course of action, she needs a lawyer, post-haste.
posted by maxwelton at 4:54 PM on October 10, 2006
Added: I've used a decent attorney for my Seattle real estate transactions. I don't know if he does conflict stuff like this but you could ask. Email me at my profile address if you want his name.
posted by maxwelton at 4:59 PM on October 10, 2006
posted by maxwelton at 4:59 PM on October 10, 2006
Just because you asked...if she's really committed to trying to deal with this sans attorney (NOT recommended), a few possibilities come to mind:
a) His behavior is not uncommon of someone who's unemployed and going into deep denial about the spiraling debt. If she can get him to communicate honestly about his finances and what's realistically possible, she might be able to re-negotiate on terms that are fairer for her and more feasible for him. Look in the yellow pages for mediation services. They'll help both parties sort out what they'd like to do, and how to reconcile that into an agreement both can feel satisfied with.
b) I suppose she might be able to file in small claims court for the amount of debt accrued so far under the contract, if she's got a good papertrail and the amount he owes her isn't already substantially higher than what's possible to collect in WA small claims. At best, she might be able to get a judgement for that amount and maybe even scare him into paying off the judgement immediately and somehow getting back on track with current/future payments. But that's the optimistic scenario and even then does nothing to address the issue of new tenants, nor the house sale.
c) In some stages, paralegal services can fill out boilerplate documents for certain straightforward legal matters. I have no idea if that's available in WA, let alone applicable to the complex situation you describe.
So, yeah, technically she might be able to take action without a lawyer. But considering how much money is at stake, she should think very carefully about the wisdom of such approaches. She stands to lose tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars, if she remains this entangled in his financial chaos.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 7:22 PM on October 10, 2006
a) His behavior is not uncommon of someone who's unemployed and going into deep denial about the spiraling debt. If she can get him to communicate honestly about his finances and what's realistically possible, she might be able to re-negotiate on terms that are fairer for her and more feasible for him. Look in the yellow pages for mediation services. They'll help both parties sort out what they'd like to do, and how to reconcile that into an agreement both can feel satisfied with.
b) I suppose she might be able to file in small claims court for the amount of debt accrued so far under the contract, if she's got a good papertrail and the amount he owes her isn't already substantially higher than what's possible to collect in WA small claims. At best, she might be able to get a judgement for that amount and maybe even scare him into paying off the judgement immediately and somehow getting back on track with current/future payments. But that's the optimistic scenario and even then does nothing to address the issue of new tenants, nor the house sale.
c) In some stages, paralegal services can fill out boilerplate documents for certain straightforward legal matters. I have no idea if that's available in WA, let alone applicable to the complex situation you describe.
So, yeah, technically she might be able to take action without a lawyer. But considering how much money is at stake, she should think very carefully about the wisdom of such approaches. She stands to lose tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars, if she remains this entangled in his financial chaos.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 7:22 PM on October 10, 2006
Response by poster: My friend, and I, thank everybody who took the time to post responses. While she is pretty resigned to hooking up with a lawyer, she wanted to hear possibilities that might work without one. Thank you to nakedcodemonkey for those thoughts. The contractor who is in the picture started out on his "side" but because of the erratic behavior and non-payment of debt is now firmly backing my friend. After she reads this thread, I'll be sure to post her decision. Thanks again.
posted by vito90 at 9:44 AM on October 11, 2006
posted by vito90 at 9:44 AM on October 11, 2006
« Older How does a Brit take a side trip to Canada while... | What do you call a group of ninjas? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by jellicle at 3:00 PM on October 10, 2006