Question inside for the armchair lawyers.
 

I'll make this a Hypothetical Situation to keep it simple:

Two people (A & B) equally own a bunch of land free and clear. Both persons are on the deed with an "and" in between their names and each own the land equally.

Person A wants to sell their half of ownership.
Person B does not want person A to sell or do anything.
Person B does also does not want to "buy out" person A.

What are person A's options if he wants to sell?

I think Person A can not be limited in selling his part by person B.

Well, if I recall my high school Business Law class correctly, I think A might be screwed.

What does the original agreement say?

Sounds to me like they did not think that part out.

Person A should get on the interwebz using a internet cafe, cash, and proxies after making sure they do not have security cameras and research hard to trace poisons and knock off person B so that they own everything since person B is being a bitch.

Maybe find person C who will buy person A's share?

Person B does not want person A to sell or do anything.
Person B does also does not want to "buy out" person A.

it really depends on the jurisdiction - the most common answer is that if B is standing in the way, A can bring a suit to partition the land and create two parcels. it can get messy.

FYI http://www.bicknell-law.com/real/real_more.asp?real=4

google is your friend. I would recommend google over GFY, as GFY is home to the largest contingent of morons on the Internet.

"does not want" doesn't necessarily mean that person A has no right to sell his share...

Real estate law is very complicated and there is no simple answer and with your fact pattern no one can answer.

We would need to know how the property is owned....

So, you are married and buy a house. The deed says you and her. Think she can just sell her portion?

Of course you can sue and try to force the issue.

baddog, agreed...however the point is that if the land is owned jointly there is likely no other way to do it, that is the answer to the question.

Hindsight is 20/20. That is why you should have contracts that are well written and take things into consideration that you would never think possible at the time of signing.

Kind of like pre-nups.

i've stated how the land is owned. there is no agreement.

there is a deed with both peoples names on it with an & in between their names.

A & B own parcel blah blah blah......

Lawsuit time. :2 cents:

Hope the property has some value to make it worth while.

I'll even thicken the plot a little.

Person B has "somehow" sold off about 100 acres of the land to the state without person A's signature.

Person B has also sold over 100k worth of additional fill dirt to the state for a 4 lane hiway.

Person A is still scrood.

I must have a one of a kind yellow pages on my kitchen table because where I live lawyers offer free sit downs with you, hear you out, and tell you if you've got a case. My legal advice is you should go tell your friend to get a free consultation.

Time for a lawyer, and quickly. The limitations to file a suit against the state are probably a lot quicker than if you were suing Joe Blow.

I would say that sale was not binding. Sounds like some forgery had to be involved. Both parties should have signed in front of notary at least.


50% belongs to Person A.

I'm thinking person B has committed a felony. I'm also thinking that the Title Insurance company is not going to be too happy because they are essentially insuring that the transaction was/is legit.

Person A already knows they need a lawyer and has one ready if that's the route they have to take.

The problem is that persons A is the daughter of person B and it's sort of a hard thing to sue your own father.

On the same token it's even worse to steal from your own kids (and grand kids)

Oh, there is all kinds of questions that come up. And the old saying that there are three sides to every story comes to mind as well.

And while it is tough to sue dad, if dad did that he would not have a problem suing her. :2 cents:

Tough love.

post whore!

ahh, one of those situations. Then have her check Dad's will and see if she likes what's in it. If she does then do the below posted earlier.

Actually let me state all the preceeding armchair lawyerly oppinions are wrong.

No person can be held indivise against their will. Any person owning together with others real estate can appeal the court, to either divide it or auction it.

The other parties have no recourse.

The "and" may also need to be clarified as to whether they are "joint" owners, or I think the other term is "common/shared" owners.

Depends on what the judge had for breakfast

Just my opinion, but I think it's far worse for a parent to screw over a child than the other way around. In this case, the child did nothing wrong and although it will cause major problems based on what kind of parent this seems to be, it sounds like they have every right to file suit.

Sounds to me that person A has one hell of a case and everyone who has suggested a sit down with the guy with the law degree's hanging on the wall is an appointment definitely worth making.

If it is undeveloped land that neither party A or B reside jointly at (and if B was selling fill dirt it doesn't sound like it is), it should make things simpler. Baddog is correct that you can't sell half of your ownership of a house and have a stranger move in with you as a new co-owner.

Party B is in hot water for profiting from the sale of fill dirt if party A was not involved in the sale and profits not divided. You can't say "I sold fill dirt from my half of the land" because the whole land is jointly owned.

If that was the case and at the very least, the judge will most probably force the sale of the land wholly and Party B will have to give Party A their portion of the profits they kept if not also sending Party B to jail for fraud and forgery of Party A's signature for the 100 acres of land sold.

Had those sales not have taken place, Party B would most probably have the right of first refusal, but Party A shouldn't be kept from selling their interest in the property.

Party A would also have a claim against any title insurance company as well if one was involved. Since her name is on the deed of sale for the 100 acres sold off, her identity needed to be established and notarized.

There should have also been a new deed issued for the remaining portion of the land that Party A & B co-own.

Lots of issues to discuss - lots of parties involved - great bargaining chip and Party A has a case.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

is Person A your mom or your wife?

Jacoby & Meyers

Solomon, Relihan & Blake

The word 'and' holds the most weight here. If Joe AND Jenny own property then it becomes one entity as the owner.