tenancy in common!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gdguysteven]

question : this question pertains to tenancy in common.
i am involved in a tenacy in common arrangement of some real property with two other persons. each person has a percentage interest in this
property. i own 32%, one other owns 43%, and the thrid person owns 25% interest in this
property. my main question is this...can this thrid person only having 25% (and being like
the minority owner)force us to sell for his fair market value of this property???? under
what circumstances, if any, can he force a sell to cash out??? me and and my other partner are living and plan on living in the house as your home!!!!!!
we refuse to want to sell this property right now. what are our rights to prevent him from forcing a sell??? again, i have 32% and my second partner has 43% interest in this
property. so, we are majority owners and whatever we say goes??? right? simply this, can this minority partner of ours force a sell of this property to get his money?? also, could we not force a buyout from him and force him out as a partner at our asking price?? because we would be majority owners with a combined percentage in this property being 32 + 43 =
85%)thus being a clear majority owners with our percentages combined. my feeling is
this.. he would not be enpowered to force a sell of this property because he is a minority
owner and we live in the home. any of yours answers would be very much appreciated. thank you! steven

remember: me and my second partner are majority owners in this property. i wanted to make this point clear!

[Ethel]

I understand the point that you and your partner are majority owners, but the third joint tenant can still go to court to force a sale to realise his asset.
Whether the court would make the order depends on an awful lot of circumstances.

He can also sell his share to anybody willing to buy it.

All of this should have been explained to you when the joint tenancy was created.

Another thing he could do if he were so inclined is run up huge debts with his share of the house as security - and not pay. His creditors could force a sale to get their money back.

Or he could get married and divorced - his ex-partner may then be entitled to her share of the marital assets.

Could you and your partner not raise the cash to buy him out?

[Peter Pedant]

Oh Dear, you are not one of my siblings are you ?

all you need do is fail to agree on so many points and then run along to the court and say we cant agree
and the court will do the obvious, order a sale on the open market
(in which you and your partner can then bid)

So basically the minority partner can force you to sell.

even if you get a fair valuation, all they need do is tool up to the court and say this isnt fair.....yap yap yap and in the end the ct will say open market.....

NOW IN FACT

this may in the long run NOT be a bad idea
clean break - open market
and then none of the claims 13.3 yrs ahead, saying this property is now worth �3.3m, and I was diddled out of 1.7% no 1.83% which I want compounded WITH costs blah blah blah

You clearly arent getting on with owner no 3
time for clean break.


There is still lots and lots of room for p+ssiing about, you know. Suppose you put it up for auction and he says, no selling through an agent is better, or not that agent, THIS agent,
OR - no I want an auction now.
OR ....no we havent waited long enugh, the offer is too low.

GET RID

[Peter Pedant]

Hmmm 15%

why dont you both get valuations, for which each pays,
split the difference
and then you give him 20%

You get him out of your face
He gets more than he expects

= a GOOD DEAL

[bednobs]

personally i would question your maths. If you and your partner have 85% between you then i dont think the other person has 25%!

anyway, why dont you buy the other person out? It's not right that the smallest shareholder has no rights and can be dictated to by the other 2 - for example what if the tables were turned .. the other two got together and said "we have the majority over YOU and so we are going to to do blah ... your feeling then wouldnt be "majority rules" would it?