edited
This post has been edited by Ricky300: Jun 12 2016, 01:25 PM
close, closed
close, closed
|
|
Jun 27 2015, 08:20 AM, updated 10y ago
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,514 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Earth |
edited
This post has been edited by Ricky300: Jun 12 2016, 01:25 PM |
|
|
Jun 27 2015, 09:50 AM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,514 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Earth |
|
|
|
Jun 27 2015, 10:25 AM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,514 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Earth |
QUOTE(cherroy @ Jun 27 2015, 10:19 AM) There is the problem of a property with joint name. That's what I told my friend too.Since the other 2/3 owner refuse to apportion the rental income, the only solution is through legal process to claim back. But the cost of legal process may outweight the 1/3 rental income. A better solution is to propose the other 2/3 owner to buy over the 1/3 share. As the property technically cannot be sold or rent (sign new tenant agreement), without all party agree. So propose to the other 2/3 portion owner, stated there may be future problematic/deadlock situation, if not buying over the 1/3 share, as if 1/3 share owner doesn't want to sign, nothing can be done on the property, which virtually all party get nothing from the property. However he was being told that, the WILL didn't state that rental has to be apportioned.......He seek advises (ain't sure if he/she is a lawyer), the advisor told him that he can't do much in this case. |
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: | 0.0122sec
0.49
6 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 26th November 2025 - 04:24 AM |