Selling share of ip to co owners

[Macca]

You put in $23k as a deposit, they put in $2.5k each, you put in an extra $21.5K into the house. It has lost $40k in value, your share of that loss is $13,333.

If they gave you the difference being $8167, does it balance out ? It seems to in my book but it is tricky to work out isn't it.

Obviously if they are genuine people they will realise they owe you something, hopefully your wife is a nicer person than her siblings

 

[Jasonf6]

Yes that works out in my book too I'm hoping they see it like that,and yes the wife is much nicer

 

[JoP]

forcing a sale by co-owners

As to the figures You own $106,666 (your 1/3 equity).You owe $115,666(your 1/3 mortgage). You put in an additional $20,500 but I doubt this is recoverable where there was no clear obligation to repay (see later). If you transferred your share to them for nil, just for getting off the mortgage, you would be receiving the benefit of ($115,666 - $106,666) $9,000. If they have offered to buy your share for nil, I think this is the best you can do but they will need to get a valuation first to assess the stamp duty on the 1/3 so maybe agree to get the valuation first before you set the figures in cement. There are some advantages to them - no commission, buying in a low market, no acquisition costs (other than the re-finance and stamp duty on 1/3 and limited legals on the transfer).

As to being able to force the issue - it is against public policy to force a co-owner to hold land they don't want to. First things first - You could just stop paying your mortgage (not recommended if you want another one), or threaten to stop paying - that will surely disturb your co-owners. You should go to a solicitor if they won't co-operate to force the issue (you will be able to get an order in the Supreme Court forcing the sale, and for costs against them) but it seems they are prepared to buy your share but for nil $ which the sticking point for you.

As to the repayment of the additional deposit you paid - I guess you all went into it thinking that you would get your extra deposit back and then all would share 1/3 in the profit? Your additional deposit didn't give you any greater equity because you agreed to buy as 1/3 owner (you don't want to argue for a greater equitable ownership that would set you up to be responsible for a greater loss if it came down to the wire). I don't see how you could argue that they owe you money for the extra deposit you paid if at the outset there was no agreement by them to repay you - probably you were to take it out of the profits, which did not eventuate. I think you all suffer equally in the loss and you suffer the loss of your extra deposit. Understand that by simply transferring your share for nil and by them re-financing to extinguish your mortgage liability, you receive the benefit of $9000 by way of your mortgage liability they are assuming.

 

[Terry_w]

Some random points:

Any transfer from you to them or them to you would attract stamp duty at market value of the amount transferred.

Legals will be an additional cost.

There may be a capital loss

Legal ownership may be 1/3 but the equitable proportions could be different due to different contributions - both financial and non-financial. Someone will no doubt being arguing that they did 'more' than the other 2 - whether talking to the agent or what.

You could get a order from the supreme court forcing the sale. But you should avoid going to court where possible because the only winners are lawyers.

Generally you would work it what is due and owing by assuming they buy you at market rates and discharge the loan. So work out all costs, deduct from value (or agreed sale price) and then deduct the loan. 1/3 of this is what they should pay you. This is assuming equal contributions.