mortgage payment dispute need your opinion

[civicrider]

so here's the story

So A and B decide to buy a house split down the middle both names on the mortgage. They live in the house for about a year and decide its not going to work so A and B both agree to move out and use it as a rental property. 6 months later A decides to move back in with some friends to help cover the mortgage no problems until A's friends ditch and leave him in the house alone, now A feels B should pay half of the mortgage until another room mate is found, if one is found at all even though B doesn't live there. B thinks A should pay the full mortgage because A is living there and wanted to move back in even though B didn't want to. A and B have both agreed to sell the property but it could take months to sell in the current market, so who should be responsible for the payments until a room mate is found or the house is sold. What would you do in this situation. For the record A and B are just friends not a couple or anything.

[Xtrema]

Any of the rent/lease transaction documented?

A & B should each pay 1/2 the mortgage, until it's sold.

If A stays in the home, he should pay rent as per signed contract regardless of having a roommate or not as long as contract is under his name. Rent should be applied to the mortgage and the balance, may it be + or - should be split between the 2 parties.

Of course, there's nothing you can do legally that is quicker than selling the home even if all contract and legal stuff are in order. So B is getting screwed over if A won't pay. He'll either drop it or go try small claims court.

And if there's no contract, B is basically fucked.

I think the compromise should be that if A can afford 1/2 the rent before, he should keep paying that 1/2. Then the negative cash flow should be shared between the 2 parties equally.

[Weapon_R]

A & B need to share responsibility in the payment.

[civicrider]

Originally posted by Weapon_R
A & B need to share responsibility in the payment.

By that you mean split the remaining owing

example mortgage is 1000 a month

A is paying $500 because A lives there

so the remaining $500 is split 50/50 until the house is sold?

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by civicrider


By that you mean split the remaining owing

example mortgage is 1000 a month

A is paying $500 because A lives there

so the remaining $500 is split 50/50 until the house is sold?

Bingo. Of course, nothing here is legal binding without the rental agreement. It's just a concession by B if he wants to remain friends with A.

But really, it's not B's problem that A's roommate quit on him and A should come up with all the rent.

[rizfarmer]

changed my mind....

At the end of the day, and legally, both parties are 50/50 responsible for the mortgage. It all depends on what the agreement was. If you displaced a steady renter just so you could go back in the house then I would say the mortgage is now the sole responsibility of of that person.

[Kloubek]

As Xtrema says...

If either A or B choose to live there, they both pay their half of the mortgage, and they should pay the rent to the "house", so to speak, which in turn gets split in half to both A and B. (Effectively giving either A or B half rent if they choose to stay)

Should neither A or B live there, and it is empty then they should both pay their half of the mortgage until the home is sold.

Should neither A or B live there, and the house has renters, then they pay their half of the mortgage, and they also divide the rental income between them.

It's not that hard - unless either A or B is being a dick about it.

The only sticking point is how much rent the individual who stays chooses to pay. Do they pay for an entire house of people's worth of rent? I'd say no. They pay whatever rent each of those individuals was paying, before they decided to move out. However, they must also make a reasonable effort to get new renters in there, in an effort to maximize the amount of rental income.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by civicrider


By that you mean split the remaining owing

example mortgage is 1000 a month

A is paying $500 because A lives there

so the remaining $500 is split 50/50 until the house is sold?

No, by that I mean each pays 50/50. The house is a partnership and they are each legally responsible for paying their share of the mortgage, whether or not renters are available to subsidize the mortgage. There was no guarantee that the original renter would have stayed, and for how long, anyways.

Think of it this way: A owns half the house. He's paying half the mortgage. Why should B escape paying the other half just because a renter can't be found?

[civicrider]

but A is getting something from paying half the mortgage a place to stay, while B is paying to live else where and now has to pay for a place that B is not living in. I know when it comes down to it yes its a 50/50 mortgage, but the fact that A came back into the house removing good renters paying the full mortgage so A can live there and when the going gets rough B gets shafted? B could easily rent the whole house out but because A is living there finding someone is a lot harder. What if A doesn't even try to find a room mate and just sits there in the house alone and making B pay the rest.

Legally B should pay half the mortgage, but is it not a HUGE DICK move for A to move in and when it doesnt turn out his way say f uck you B its your half that is not being paid so you deal with it.

[ee2k]

So A lives in the house because he wants to rent the house. If A did not live in the house, a renter called C would have rented for the full amount and covered both partners' shares.

Since A lives there now, he has to cover both A and B's shares

[civicrider]

Originally posted by ee2k
So A lives in the house because he wants to rent the house. If A did not live in the house, a renter called C would have rented for the full amount and covered both partners' shares.

Since A lives there now, he has to cover both A and B's shares

That's what i think, because B had renters (C) to cover the full amount for a year contract before A decided to move in

[BoostMonkey]

unfortunitly you both agree'd to purchase the place so even though the co owner lives there they are still only liable to pay half as he is co owner.

Take for example when someone buys a multi-family home, the owner will live in one suite and pay x amount while the renter will pay other x amount.

As well since B does not live there and doesn't want to pay their half it would be their responsibility to find a renter to cover their cost as that is there investment into the place. You cannot take profit away from A, A would also be responsible for finding renters to cover their cost. So to to put it blunt...

A owes their half, and B owes their half regardless of any situation!

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by civicrider


That's what i think, because B had renters (C) to cover the full amount for a year contract before A decided to move in

Woah? So there was a C who was paying full rent and A moved in and chased C out?

Then A should pay full rent.

[civicrider]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Woah? So there was a C who was paying full rent and A moved in and chased C out?

Then A should pay full rent.

yes B had renters to cover the whole payment and then A said he wanted to move back in.

[AZ REALTY]

"A" should pay the full payment because it was their decision to move in and kick the renters out who were covering the mortgage payment.

However, if "A" can't afford to cover the full payment and can't find a roommate, then:

1. "A" should either move out and rent the house to cover the payments.

2. "B" could move back in with "A" and resume the original agreement.

3. "B" stays were they are and covers half of the payment while "A" remains in the house.

Sucks to be in the situation. Good luck!

[bignerd]

It would seem to me, since both A and B will be splitting any equity after the home is sold, both A and B should be paying half of the mortgage payment. A is just smarter because he is living there too.

[88jbody]

A and B pay the mortgage 50/50
and if A is living in it the rent he is paying should be split between a and b

mortgage is 1000
a and b pay 500 each on it
a lives in house and should be paying rent the rent will then get divided 50/50 between a and b
so if rent is 800 each will get 400 from the rent so the person in the house should be paying 1/2 the rent to the one not.


or drop the price sell the house faster.

[el-nino]

They both have to pay the mortgage. If there was a lease agreement prior to "A" moving back in than the "right" thing to do is get compensated back for the lost potential income.
The short and legal way is "b" has to pay 50% of the payment.

[Kloubek]

I didn't realize there were already renters in the home.

Knowing now that A moved in, and removed C (who would have been paying rent for a year?) that is indeed A's problem.

A should be responsible for paying the full rent payment that would have been obtained from C, until such time as they find renters to cover the rental amount.

[civicrider]

You think A would take the responsibility but it doesn't look that way, even though when A moved in B said if/when your friends leave A is responsible for the mortgage, which now that it has happened A denies agreeing to this.

[em2ab]

It's B's responsibility to make sure they're not put in a bad position. If they trust A with anything and get shafted, it's their responsibility to keep paying half the mortgage, they can't blame it on A. If A chases out renters, it's B's fault for letting A back in. Split 50/50 payments.

[Jeremiah]

At first i thought it should be equal responsibility.

But It seems unfair that A had nowhere to go so he removed C and is now basically renting a place to live for free. (but still paying the mortgage)

It sucks that you got a mortgage with a selfish fuck, sounds like a woman to me

[civicrider]

Originally posted by em2ab
It's B's responsibility to make sure they're not put in a bad position. If they trust A with anything and get shafted, it's their responsibility to keep paying half the mortgage, they can't blame it on A. If A chases out renters, it's B's fault for letting A back in. Split 50/50 payments.

Can B really tell A that he can't move into A's own house?

[Recca168]

They have always been splitting the payments as they both are responsible for the mortgage. Even in the case when A and and his roommates were living house.

A and his roomates were paying rent every month.
A and B would be splitting this rent.
Then A and B would pay their respective shares in the mortgage.

With the roommates moved out they are just losing out on the rent. The split payment doesn't change. If B doesn't want to pay for mortgage then he should rent out a couple rooms.

[sputnik]

You have to think of the mortgage and rent as two separate transactions.

Mortgage - Both A & B are responsible for making sure the morgage is paid.

Rent - The tenant is required to pay the rent. The rent is assumed to be the cost of carrying the house (mortgage, maintenance and property taxes).

If A and B rent out the house the tenant (regardless of who it is) will have to pay the full rent.

If A is the tenant then he should pay the full rent on his own. After all he is ultimately renting half of the house from B to begin with. If he wants to get a roommate to cover the costs, then that is up to him.

[jonnycat]

Originally posted by em2ab
It's B's responsibility to make sure they're not put in a bad position. If they trust A with anything and get shafted, it's their responsibility to keep paying half the mortgage, they can't blame it on A. If A chases out renters, it's B's fault for letting A back in. Split 50/50 payments.


Originally posted by Recca168
They have always been splitting the payments as they both are responsible for the mortgage. Even in the case when A and and his roommates were living house.

A and his roomates were paying rent every month.
A and B would be splitting this rent.
Then A and B would pay their respective shares in the mortgage.

With the roommates moved out they are just losing out on the rent. The split payment doesn't change. If B doesn't want to pay for mortgage then he should rent out a couple rooms.

I concur.

[civicrider]

lets say B finds a renter to cover the other half but A does not like the renter B picked, so A does things to B's renter to make him leave, What can B to to insure that if this happens B does not get left with the payment again?

[CUG]

All the bullshit details here don't matter other than the fact both of them are on the mortgage.

They both should be paying their share of the mortgage as this is a piece of equity that will in the end, regardless of who lived there, be divided up equally.


Wow, am I ever glad I don't do whatever it is you guys are doing.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by civicrider
lets say B finds a renter to cover the other half but A does not like the renter B picked, so A does things to B's renter to make him leave, What can B to to insure that if this happens B does not get left with the payment again?

Being that A displaced C to rent the place, A should be responsible for the full rental cost - regardless of whether or not he/she has a roommate. Should he/she get a roommate, then they split the rental cost between them.

If A doesn't like this, then he/she can find suitable renters, and move out themselves.

[Recca168]

Originally posted by civicrider
lets say B finds a renter to cover the other half but A does not like the renter B picked, so A does things to B's renter to make him leave, What can B to to insure that if this happens B does not get left with the payment again?

A and B would have to draw up some sort of tenancy agreement where A is renting the property and responsible for the monthly "rent". Then A would be responsible for finding roommates to cover the rent. B would collect his share or the rent and pay his share of the mortgage. I take it that you're B?

[em2ab]

Originally posted by Kloubek


Being that A displaced C to rent the place, A should be responsible for the full rental cost - regardless of whether or not he/she has a roommate. Should he/she get a roommate, then they split the rental cost between them.

If A doesn't like this, then he/she can find suitable renters, and move out themselves.
Negative. If you have 2 people renting 2 rooms in a house that belongs to you and one renter chases out the other renter, you can't make them pay the entire rent. They still pay only for their own room regardless of whether or not the other room is rented.....even if it's their fault the other person left. It doesn't matter if A chased the renters out or not, doesn't make a difference. B still has the option of getting someone in there to rent out a room and cover his half of the mortgage.

If A doesn't like the new renter that is picked and it's because A doesn't want to live with them, tough luck. If it's because A thinks they'll damage the house and will be a bad tenant, then it's understandable. But it's B's responsibility to get someone in there to cover HIS half of the rent.

EDIT - I just thought about it some more, if A is living there, they can cover the entire rent if they pay equal amounts to both owners. That is if they pay half to themselves and half to B to cover the rent. That way regardless of whether or not the rent covers the mortgage, B can still pay their half with the help from half the rent paid by A. Not what I would say is required but could solve the issue.

[JfuckinC]

Originally posted by civicrider
lets say B finds a renter to cover the other half but A does not like the renter B picked, so A does things to B's renter to make him leave, What can B to to insure that if this happens B does not get left with the payment again?

A needs a good kick in the fucking teeth clearly.

[civicrider]

Originally posted by JfuckinC


A needs a good kick in the fucking teeth clearly.

yes but i dont think it will get any sense into him

[sputnik]

Originally posted by civicrider
lets say B finds a renter to cover the other half but A does not like the renter B picked, so A does things to B's renter to make him leave, What can B to to insure that if this happens B does not get left with the payment again?

A should be paying the FULL rent if he is renting the FULL house.

How are you not able to see this?

If A is living in the house alone then essentially B is renting half of his share to A.

If A is unwilling to pay the entire rent then B should evict A and find C to rent the house.

[civicrider]

Originally posted by sputnik


A should be paying the FULL rent if he is renting the FULL house.

How are you not able to see this?

If A is living in the house alone then essentially B is renting half of his share to A.

If A is unwilling to pay the entire rent then B should evict A and find C to rent the house.

That's exactly how i see it, but i can not get this into A's fucking head and im not sure how i could go about evicting him from his own house.

[Ntense_SpecV]

Originally posted by sputnik


A should be paying the FULL rent if he is renting the FULL house.

How are you not able to see this?

If A is living in the house alone then essentially B is renting half of his share to A.

If A is unwilling to pay the entire rent then B should evict A and find C to rent the house.

This is all well and good but A OWNS the house with B....this has nothing to do about rent - B cannot evict A. Both A & B pay 50% of the mortgage and if B wants he can find someone to cover his cost of the mortgage through C renter.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by civicrider


That's exactly how i see it, but i can not get this into A's fucking head and im not sure how i could go about evicting him from his own house.

Then threaten to stop paying your portion of the house. Eventually the mortgage will default, the house will be foreclosed and he will be out a place to stay and it will affect his credit rating.

Why should you pay for him to live there?

[Ntense_SpecV]

Originally posted by sputnik


Then threaten to stop paying your portion of the house. Eventually the mortgage will default, the house will be foreclosed and he will be out a place to stay and it will affect his credit rating.

Why should you pay for him to live there?

Why shouldn't he pay for a house that he owns 50% - just because he's not living there doesn't mean that he's not obligated to pay his portion? I understand the whole "rent" thing but you have to separate rent from mortgage.

[em2ab]

Originally posted by sputnik


A should be paying the FULL rent if he is renting the FULL house.

How are you not able to see this?

If A is living in the house alone then essentially B is renting half of his share to A.

If A is unwilling to pay the entire rent then B should evict A and find C to rent the house.

Disagree. What if A and B both live there together? They pay half each right? Then B decides he's going to go live with his girlfriend instead, should he expect A to automatically start paying the entire rent because he left? It doesn't matter if A is renting the full house, it is B's responsibility, no matter what, to find another renter to cover his half of the mortgage. He can rent out a room or two.

[civicrider]

Originally posted by sputnik


Then threaten to stop paying your portion of the house. Eventually the mortgage will default, the house will be foreclosed and he will be out a place to stay and it will affect his credit rating.

Why should you pay for him to live there?

Yes but that will equally hurt my credit rating and foreclose my house too, so if a threaten not to pay he will most likely not pay either.





Originally posted by Ntense_SpecV


Why shouldn't he pay for a house that he owns 50% - just because he's not living there doesn't mean that he's not obligated to pay his portion? I understand the whole "rent" thing but you have to separate rent from mortgage.


True but B's portion is not being paid because A moved in, is A didn't move in B's half would have been covered from renters.

[Ntense_SpecV]

Originally posted by civicrider


Yes but that will equally hurt my credit rating and foreclose my house too, so if a threaten not to pay he will most likely not pay either.







True but B's portion is not being paid because A moved in, is A didn't move in B's half would have been covered from renters.

Then you should move back in and you can both pay yourselves. I mean, you are pissed at the principle but A is legally in the right and doesn't have to cover your half of the mortgage.

[sillysod]

Think of it as a business... nothing personal. I have rental property with a partener and it goes like this:

We both own 50%. We do not have it as OUR residence we have it as a stream of income.

The renters pay the mortgate and ontop of that we both make a small income off the property.

If I decided I wanted to live there then does it sound right that my partner should have to pay 1/2 of my rent? Of course not.

Remember business is about making money, sounds like you are running a charity. Nice guys always finish last.

Worst case scenario sell your half.....




Summary: Selling half a home? That's what this reader would like to do. He shares title in the property with his brother and wants to know if he can his half of the house to anyone he wants.


Summary: Selling half a home? That's what this reader would like to do. He shares title in the property with his brother and wants to know if he can his half of the house to anyone he wants.

Q: My brother and I inherited equal shares in my late father's home. My brother is living in the home and I want to sell my half. I gave him first choice to buy me out, but so far he has not followed through.

Can I sell my half of the house to anyone? The house is in both of our names.



A: If the home is now in both of your names, you can sell your half of the home to anybody. But it is unlikely that anybody would want to buy your share of the home with your brother living in it. If you did sell it to someone, that person's most likely intent would be to buy your share, sue your brother to force the sale of the home or force your brother to buy the other half of the home from this new stranger.

If you and your brother can't work the situation out, you would have to take the same course of action. You hire an attorney to force a sale of the home. Either owner of the home can bid to purchase the home from the other or the some can be sold to the highest bidder with the proceeds from the sale being split between the owners of the home.

If your brother is employed and has financial means you should try to come up with some sort of agreement that would make you happy and keep your brother happy. Suing your brother should be your last resort, because it could severely tarnish your relationship.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Ntense_SpecV


Why shouldn't he pay for a house that he owns 50% - just because he's not living there doesn't mean that he's not obligated to pay his portion? I understand the whole "rent" thing but you have to separate rent from mortgage.

From my understanding is that B returned AFTER they had already been renting it out and starting paying half.

While he may be the owner, he is also the tenant.

The only difference between B and C is that half of B's rent is going towards his equity.

If A and B both lived in the house and A took off, then it would be up to A to find a tenant to cover his half of the house costs.

[civicrider]

Originally posted by sillysod
Think of it as a business... nothing personal. I have rental property with a partener and it goes like this:

We both own 50%. We do not have it as OUR residence we have it as a stream of income.

The renters pay the mortgage and on top of that we both make a small income off the property.

If I decided I wanted to live there then does it sound right that my partner should have to pay 1/2 of my rent? Of course not.

Remember business is about making money, sounds like you are running a charity. Nice guys always finish last.

Worst case scenario sell your half.....




I like how you put this, but let me use your example to show what "you" could do in this situation. So you moved in and were taking the whole rent on, suddenly things are not going your way and you are tight for cash so you go and stick it to your partner, you are only going to pay half and that's it because you are in a 50/50 business partnership. So now your partner either has to dish up the cash for a place that not only he isn't using but now is not making money from this property, but instead pay into it. Now he could not pay the other half either but that's only going to hurt both of you in the end. Now if it was business there would have been a contract to avoid this, but A and B is/was a friendship so it was done with trust which does not do fuck all in this situation, i guess you can't even count on friends to be honest these days.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by sillysod
Think of it as a business... nothing personal. I have rental property with a partener and it goes like this:

We both own 50%. We do not have it as OUR residence we have it as a stream of income.

The renters pay the mortgate and ontop of that we both make a small income off the property.

If I decided I wanted to live there then does it sound right that my partner should have to pay 1/2 of my rent? Of course not.

Remember business is about making money, sounds like you are running a charity. Nice guys always finish last.

:werd: x 1000

The guy living in the house is essentially being subsidized by the other owner. He might be only half owner... but he is 100% tenant and has the responsibilities like any other tenant would.

If he doesn't like it, he should find a place of his own and rent the property to a tenant willing to pay the full amount.

[TomcoPDR]

Originally posted by civicrider
so A and B both agree to move out and use it as a rental property. 6 months later A decides to move back in with some friends

I read OP's question at least 5 times. I've dealt with rental properties and witness good friends purchase homes together.

I'm going to take the OP's writting as the actual account here. BOTH PARTIES agree to move out, morally that terminated the initial "buddy living together, split mortgage" agreement, it is further confirmed with "let's use it as a rental revenue property" (from this day forward)

That completely seperated owner occupancy as to turning into a revenue business of rental property. Doesn't matter if 1 person, 2 people, a corporation has finanical responsiblity of the mortgage; it's the agreement of HOW the property is used and change agreement of new changes.

A = Asshole, for his/her selfish reaons requires to live somewhere, however that does not provide immediate rights of his 50% vote to evict full paying tenant "C" for him and his buddies to benefit.

A was already benefiting from new agreement of revenue property when "C" was renting entire property (and then individually, A and B could either spend that money on drugs or apply it to their $500/ $500 share of their mortgage halves)

A should be treated like a proper tenant (since he's being an ass), where A should go through regular screening process from property landlords (which is A and B, seeing A would say yes, B could say no, that cancels any arguements leaving to the fact that A needs to man up and keep new agreement of using the property for rental purpose and not come up with self benefiting rewards for himself creating unfair conditions for his/her friend and 50% landlord partner B)

Bottom line, A and B both agreed to life's changes. They are now business investors in a rental property business... Let's say I owned public shares of Telus (0.0000000000001% ownership), that doesn't mean I can walk into a Telus store and grab a free phone waving my share certificate around saying I'm taking 3 shares worth of phone products. No, in fact I still have to pay for the phone (product)

This is the case with A, he still needs to pay for the product of living in said house. But he's trying to pull a fast one of B claiming his investment support (mortgage payment) should be part of his product benefits (taking a free Telus phone if you're a shareholder)

[civicrider]

okay here's an update

B has gone ahead and found a renter to live with A. A still has one friend living with him but this friend is not paying enough to cover the mortgage. The person B found is willing to pay more but refuses to live with two other people. So B told A to get his friend out of the house so C the new guy can move in to cover the payment. Now A is refusing to kick his friend out (with a months notice) So B needs to evict the friend but is not sure how to do so, as he is not a tenant but has a shared accommodation with A who is a part owner.

[lint]

I think Tomco hit it. Renters don't pay the mortgage. A and B pay the mortgage regardless of who's living there. A and B also share in revenue that the property generates, once they had both moved out and agreed to rent it out. If A moves in with buddies, they are renters. The total rent that they pay is split between A and B as 50% owners of the property. Just because A pays 50% of the mortgage doesn't mean he doesn't pay rent. If he wants his half of the rental income to cover his mortgage, he should stop being an asshole and make sure that the total rent paid by all renters = mortgage.

[benyl]

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/250716/alberta-landlord-tenant-questions-faq/

Phone the number at the bottom of the first post.

[gretz]

sounds like a bad soap opera

[89coupe]

Originally posted by civicrider


By that you mean split the remaining owing

example mortgage is 1000 a month

A is paying $500 because A lives there

so the remaining $500 is split 50/50 until the house is sold?

Absolutely NOT! LOL, what kind of stupid plan is that...LOL

The two owners split it down the middle period!! If B doesn't want to live there and neither can find renters, its not A's responsibility to pay more just because B isn't living there.

What kind of idiots are these two...LOL

[Eleanor]

The way it should work: (Not legally, but if the two people could get their heads out of their asses.)

A & B each pay half the mortgage every month, period.

A has to pay rent to the owners (A & B) every month, w/e rent was decided to be.

Example: Mortgage & Rent both @ $1,000/month

A & B pay $500/month to the bank to pay off the mortgage.

A has to pay $1,000/month to the owners, $500 to A & $500 to B.

A isn't going to pay himself, therefore the outcome:

A pays $500 to the bank & $500 to B who then gives it to the bank.

A pays $1,000/month for 1/2 ownership & rent & B comes out even for 1/2 ownership.

[FreakinPrince]

eleanor that makes sense and you're right it comes out even for half ownership

however the rent money that goes towards B...doesnt B have control what to do with it?

don't flame me..just asking a question

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by FreakinPrince
eleanor that makes sense and you're right it comes out even for half ownership

however the rent money that goes towards B...doesnt B have control what to do with it?

don't flame me..just asking a question
yeah he/she does, but B still has to pay $500 to the bank, it doesn't matter where it comes from.

A gives B $500 and B has to pay $500 to the bank.

[Kloubek]

Holy shit... this situation is totally out of control.

Note to self: When investing with others, ensure maturity exists first.

[civicrider]

Originally posted by 89coupe


Absolutely NOT! LOL, what kind of stupid plan is that...LOL

The two owners split it down the middle period!! If B doesn't want to live there and neither can find renters, its not A's responsibility to pay more just because B isn't living there.

What kind of idiots are these two...LOL

umm well if you actually read the whole thing you would see B had renters in the house paying the full mortgage before A moved in, so before you open your mouth READ, this is whats causing the dispute. If B just moved out and left A with out a renter of course B is still responsible for his half but this is not the case.

[benyl]

Originally posted by 89coupe

The two owners split it down the middle period!! If B doesn't want to live there and neither can find renters, its not A's responsibility to pay more just because B isn't living there.

What kind of idiots are these two...LOL

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Nobody told B to move out.

[benyl]

Originally posted by civicrider


umm well if you actually read the whole thing you would see B had renters in the house paying the full mortgage before A moved in, so before you open your mouth READ, this is whats causing the dispute. If B just moved out and left A with out a renter of course B is still responsible for his half but this is not the case.

It doesn't matter. They are both responsible for paying the Mortgage.


A should be a good guy and find someone to cover's B side of the mortgage, but it isn't his responsibility.

B needs to find a renter that can live with A if B doesn't want to live with A.

[Ntense_SpecV]

Originally posted by civicrider


umm well if you actually read the whole thing you would see B had renters in the house paying the full mortgage before A moved in, so before you open your mouth READ, this is whats causing the dispute. If B just moved out and left A with out a renter of course B is still responsible for his half but this is not the case.

The problem is that nothing was drafted as a tenant agreement between A & B once A moved back in - why exactly did B let this happen? Did A and B discuss any sort of terms of "rent" - or was it a verbal thing? I'm sure all B wants to do is tell A to leave but A thinks "well dammit it's 50% mine and I'm paying the mortgage so I don't need to pay for rent". Person A thinks of it as a home where B still thinks of it as a rental property.

[TomcoPDR]

Originally posted by benyl


Ding! Ding! Ding!

Nobody told B to move out.


Originally posted by civicrider
for about a year and decide its not going to work so A and B both agree to move out and use it as a rental property

[civicrider]

A and B had a verbal agreement, something you think a friend would live up to, B told A if he moves in with his Friends A is responsible for the place and if A's friends ditch out because A did not sign a contract with them its his problem, well what do you know 6 months later A's friends screw him and leave. So A in return has screwed B by claiming this deal never existed and tells B its his problems now. A offered to find a roommate but a month already passes and A has not even started to look. So B has taken it into his own hands 50% of the house is his so B can put whoever he wants in his 50% of the house right, which B has now done but A does not like who he picked. So A is SOL and will live with who B has picked because A has chosen to be a dick so B has moved in to take care of his half

[TACO.VIDAL]

this is why you never split a house purchase with friends.

take a look at how many threads there are on here asking advice about getting advice on doing this.

this is the first thread i remember on here about a situation going bad but i know several friendships that have ended over exactly the shit thats going on in the situation the OP mentioned.

hopefully A and B bought the house prior to 2006 and at least sell for enough to cover the mortgage. then call it a lesson learned.

[TomcoPDR]

You know what, what about B starts growing some profitable plants in "his half" of the house...

A shouldn't have a say (considering A's attitude of occupying a full house but only paying 50%, while telling B it's his problem with the half-house that doesn't really attract a lot of potential tenants)

B has the rights to said products produced on his half of the house, this is good for B because even though he's an investment owner but he can prove he doesn't physically live at that house and therefore has no control what type of activities A is involved into.

Added: Fuck people who fucks you! :thumbsdow

[civicrider]

Originally posted by TomcoPDR
You know what, what about B starts growing some profitable plants in "his half" of the house...

A shouldn't have a say (considering A's attitude of occupying a full house but only paying 50%, while telling B it's his problem with the half-house that doesn't really attract a lot of potential tenants)

B has the rights to said products produced on his half of the house, this is good for B because even though he's an investment owner but he can prove he doesn't physically live at that house and therefore has no control what type of activities A is involved into.

Added: Fuck people who fucks you! :thumbsdow

YES
this is the best idea yet and i think i might fully go though with this haha what a great idea