Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-07-2013, 11:11 AM
 
4 posts, read 5,777 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

My friend's dad and his dad's ex girlfriend are joint tenants on a property. They're legally being forced to sever the joint tenancy. She refuses to sell with him to anyone but her sister. He refuses to sell to anyone but his daughter.

The court has decided that his preference takes priority for whatever reason, which appears to present some unfavorable issues for my friend and her dad:

1. her dad will have to pay a closing cost to buy his ex-girlfriend's half (he would be paying in cash) and tax to sell it to his daughter
2. she will have to pay a closing cost to buy the whole house from her dad (she would be taking out a mortgage)

The property is valued at $450,000 in Brooklyn, so these costs would be very high.

Is there any way to reduce the financial complexity that doesn't involve her NOT buying the house?

I mean, is there any way that he can just buy his ex-gf's half without paying closing costs or any way he can sell her the house without paying tax (maybe because they're father/daughter, I dunno)?

To protect her ownership from legal contest in the event he were to pass, he can't sell it to her below market value, so no tricks can be done that way.

Last edited by hidavi; 03-07-2013 at 11:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2013, 05:50 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
25,368 posts, read 37,084,455 times
Reputation: 12769
This is too muddy and all three parties here should proceed only with some good legal advice.

So weird: "Will sell only to" kind of stuff is usually frowned on by the courts. It has the smell of GIFT about it and thus "tax avoidance." I'm surprised the court didn't say "sell the house to the highest bidder and split the proceeds two ways." Then daddy could make a clean gift of whatever he wanted to give his daughter.

In effect the court has said there is a joint tenancy BUT one of the tenants has more rights than the other??? Strange. In reality either tenant could destroy the joint tenancy and the property becomes owned by "tenants-in-common"...no court neededd. Then, certainly either could buy out the other. In fact, daddy could give or sell his share of the TIC property to his daughter and she could live there, perhaps even with ex-stepmother-in law-twice removed, after hiding all sharp instruments.


Who is living in the house now? When daddy gives his almost ex-stepmother-in-law $225,000 (did the court decide how much she must be paid?) what will he sell the home to his daughter for?

A royal mess. (Don't people think about consequences before they keel over, presuming that granddaddy died?)

Can we presume that both of the litigants have lawyers? If so, then perhaps they should give some advice...after all, they were the ones who crafted the current situation.

Last edited by Kefir King; 03-09-2013 at 06:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Upper East, NY
1,145 posts, read 3,000,775 times
Reputation: 563
1) get the court to order ex-gf to sell to daughter, making 2 transactions 1 so the seller tax doesn't invoke twice.

2) father gifts his share to daughter and uses some legal maneuver to use multiple people's gift exclusion over multiple years so gift tax is not invoked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 09:59 AM
 
Location: NY,NY
2,896 posts, read 9,814,176 times
Reputation: 2074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
This is too muddy and all three parties here should proceed only with some good legal advice.

So weird: "Will sell only to" kind of stuff is usually frowned on by the courts. It has the smell of GIFT about it and thus "tax avoidance." I'm surprised the court didn't say "sell the house to the highest bidder and split the proceeds two ways." Then daddy could make a clean gift of whatever he wanted to give his daughter.
What's your problem, YOU post all the time seeking advice in ALL sorts of legal avoidance! The last being how to DEFRAUD the Government, and have Unemployment and the American People support your friend!

Quote:
In effect the court has said there is a joint tenancy BUT one of the tenants has more rights than the other??? Strange. In reality either tenant could destroy the joint tenancy and the property becomes owned by "tenants-in-common"...no court neededd. Then, certainly either could buy out the other. In fact, daddy could give or sell his share of the TIC property to his daughter and she could live there, perhaps even with ex-stepmother-in law-twice removed, after hiding all sharp instruments.
WTF?

You're the King of making sht up!

****

What can factually be gleaned from the OP's post through personal knowledge and experience is this:

Ownership status is "Joint Tenants". The court DID NOT and DOES NOT establish this state. It exists as of the purchase of the property. It is determined by the PURCHASERS!

Here we go AGAIN!

Quote:
In reality either tenant could destroy the joint tenancy and the property becomes owned by "tenants-in-common"...no court neededd. Then, certainly either could buy out the other.
Absolute nonsense! Wrong! Misinformation w/o ANY knowledge of the law nor real estate mattters.

Anyoe can have an "opinion", but to state one's brain farts as fact and real is simply IRRESPONSIBLE and serves absolutely NO PURPOSE whatsoever!

The reality is thus:

Joint Tenant infers EQUAL ownership, not simply equal *equity*, BUT (and in this case MOST importantly), each "Tenant" is cojoined with EQUAL right and claim to the property, AND CONSENT OF ALL TENANTS is required to effect any change in the property and/or to sell the property!!!

No Tenant has greater rights than the other, AND contrary to KK's ill statement, neither Tenant can unilaterally **desolve** the Joint Tenancy!! To say such is simply stupid! Such s/n have been said w/o absolute knowledge!

The Joint Tenancy CANNOT be desolved w/o the consent of ALL Tenants.

The purpose of Joint Tenants is to PREVENT any of the parties from acting upon the property w/o the consent of all the parties.

[The ill knowledge, misinformation and lack of self policing in this forum is incredible!! Shameful actually!]

*****

So, in the event of desent among the Joint Tenants, as apparently is the OP's case, when Joint Tenant's cannot agree, Suit can be brought requesting a Court to resolve the matter between the Joint Tenants.

In the OP's case, it appears, that each of the two Joint Tenants wished to sell, for their separate purposes, to separate parties, one to her sister, the other to his daughter.

Again, it appears, that the matter was brought before a court, and the court determined (for reasons unstated) that the property can be sold to the daughter of one of the Joint Tenants (the "dad").

From this point, the OP engages in a number of contradictions. For example, if the court has decided the property c/b sold to one Tenans buyer, then there is NO issue of one Tenant buying out the other. So, something is amis with the facts as the OP relays them!!!

Back to KK's no-sense:

When a Joint Tenancy is, using KK's term, "desolved", ownership status does NOT *revert* to "Tenants in Common", that is absolutely silly! Rather a new ownership status is chosen and decided upon by the parties involved. There is more than just two types of status.

KK is *semi* correct, in that court intervention is not required, in order that ownership status be changed. All that is necessary is consensual agreement, and the proper legal documents executed (and filed). Quite simple.

There is no ownership status which precludes any party/Tenant from "buying out" any or all other Tenants. In a Joint Tenancy, either party can buy out the other(s); or, in the instance of Tenants in Common, the same applies. There is no distinction! Consequently, no ownership status change is necessary for a buy out of one party by the other!

KK is correct, in that under a Tenants in Common status, the "dad" could give/transfer his ownership *share* to anyone, including his daughet.

KK is INCORRECT in suggesting that the "daughter", as a consequence, w/h a right to "live" in the apartment w/o the consent of the second party Joint Tenant. Such an assertion is ridiculous in concept! Such a transfer w/n convey any living or conjugal status!! Numnutted. The **SOCIAL** arrangment between the Joint Tenants is SEPARATE and WHOLLY APART from any ownership status!!! I cannot begin to comprehend what sort of mind would conjure up such an absurd notion.


Please STOP the misinformation!! Specifically, in the instances of SERIOUS matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 11:08 AM
 
Location: NY,NY
2,896 posts, read 9,814,176 times
Reputation: 2074
Quote:
Originally Posted by hidavi View Post
My friend's dad and his dad's ex girlfriend are joint tenants on a property. They're legally being forced to sever the joint tenancy. She refuses to sell with him to anyone but her sister. He refuses to sell to anyone but his daughter.

The court has decided that his preference takes priority for whatever reason, which appears to present some unfavorable issues for my friend and her dad:

1. her dad will have to pay a closing cost to buy his ex-girlfriend's half (he would be paying in cash) and tax to sell it to his daughter
You appear to be contradicting the issue, and not making sense.

If the court has determined that "Dad's" preference of *buyer* (his daughter), then both parties (Joint Tenants) can sell to the daughter. Issue closed.

Btw, in all you said, you haven't demonstrated that the Joint Tenancy is "severed". I suspect that you mispoke, and are likely speaking to their *relationship* status, as opposed to their *ownership" status.

Severing Joint Tenancy ownership status, MEANS that the interest of one or more parties has been given to one or more of the other Joint Parties. In the case you describe, either the dad or the gf would be giving up their status as Joint Tenant, and the remaining w/h FULL rights (though not necessarily *Interest*).

Anyway, I presme that you mispoke and that the Joint Tenancy is NOT severed. Simply, that their personal relationship is over.

*****

As stated above, the court has determined that dad's choice of buyer has prevailed.

Now, I have to point out certain contradictions in your post:

[/quote]My friend's dad and his dad's ex girlfriend....

...unfavorable issues for my friend and her dad: [/quote]

I'm CONFUSED! Is your "friend" a guy, girl, or androginous??

Quote:
1. her dad will have to pay a closing cost to buy his ex-girlfriend's half (he would be paying in cash) and tax to sell it to his daughter
2. she will have to pay a closing cost to buy the whole house from her dad (she would be taking out a mortgage)
I surmise, that your friiend is a girl, and that she is the "dad's" *daughter*, the court determined allowed 'buyer', correct?

[quote]
Quote:
1. her dad will have to pay a closing cost to buy his ex-girlfriend's half (he would be paying in cash) and tax to sell it to his daughter
Simply put, your friend and her "dad", NEED to consult either a real estate attorny and a tax attorney or a tax accountant.

What they need to determine is, what will be the most effective manner to convey the interest of the Joint Tenants with a minimum tax liability, as well as to limit (what you term as "closing cost").

For example, there will likely be a "transfer tax", and in the case of a coop (every coop is different), a so called "flip tax", which is a fee penalty coop's impose on sales to prevent *flipping*.

Another possible issue is the value which is being convey to the daughter, and how will the IRS view the conveyance, as a *gift*, *income*, etc.

There is also, the issue of Capital Gains! Presuming that the present value of the coop is greater than the purchase value, the difference represents a financial gain, which is taxable.

Sooo, no one in this forum can give you an adequate response, because there are a GREAT many details, which ONLY a real estate and tax professional(s) can address.

Quote:
Is there any way to reduce the financial complexity that doesn't involve her NOT buying the house?
The transaction will be complex, there is no way to escape that. Yet, there are SEVERAL ways to convey property, and several intended to minimize costs/liabilities.

It must be determined, by a close examination of the circumstance, which is the most productive method for the circumstance. Again, a professional is required.

Quote:
I mean, is there any way that he can just buy his ex-gf's half without paying closing costs or any way he can sell her the house without paying tax (maybe because they're father/daughter, I dunno)?
Overall, not likely, at minimum, there w/b the issue of the IRS, and whether the daughter is receiving Income or a Gift, either way there will be a tax liability.

Quote:
To protect her ownership from legal contest in the event he were to pass, he can't sell it to her below market value, so no tricks can be done that way.
Selling *below* market has NO bearing whatsoever!!

Just as an example, the "dad", could use the *cash* to "buy out" the GF, then convey the property to his daughter for $1. Again, the IRS issue is a factor.

One additional factor to consider is whether the daughter, if she becomes the owner of record, then SHE will likely have to be vetted and approved by the Coop Board. If she, independantly, does not meet their ownership standars, then she will not be approved, and consequently cannot own the coop in her name.

So, AGAIN, consult a professoional. I suggest, BOTH a real estate attorney of GOOD experience and competence, as well as an equally credentialed tax accountant or tax attorney.

You can find an attorney by calling (or visiting the site) of the New York County Bar Association's referral service. They will inform you of a couple of competant attorneys. You will need to articulate the circumstance well, so they can advise you properly and choose an appropriate attorney.

Sorry, I cannot advise as to how to find a competent tax accountant. I'm sure there is some tax accountant organization with referral service. If you find a good real estate attorney, it is likely he will know of a competent accountant or tax attorney. Might be best, as they will need to work closely in order to structure the deal to the best benefit.

*****

The lesson here is DO NOT "Joint Tenant" with a Girlfriend to whom you have no permanent legal relationship, such as MARRIAGE!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top