SoleMate Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 (edited) Not that I recommend any of this. [i quote a judge's decision below; it is public domain material, and I have obscured the names for a bit of privacy for those involved.] "In 1986, Mary Fl**** (Fl****) and George H**** (H****) decided to buy a house in the Hancock Park neighborhood of Los Angeles. Although F**** was hurt and angered to learn—in the middle of closing on the house—that Hightower was married to someone else, the two nevertheless went forward with the purchase and took title as tenants in common. "In May 1987, H**** and Fl**** got into an argument that ended when Fl**** struck H**** in the head with a crystal lamp and threatened him with serious bodily harm if he ever returned. Shortly thereafter, Fl**** evicted H****’s daughter from the property by depositing all of her belongings onto the driveway, and went on to change the security gate code and to change all the locks without giving H**** the keys. From that day on, Fl****did not let H**** back onto the property except for a couple of closely “chaperon[ed]” visits in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, and denied his requests to live in the guest house on the property and to use the property for his daughter’s wedding. Early on, H**** made partial tax payments and paid some upkeep costs (and also claimed to have made undocumented mortgage payments) on the property, but his financial contribution stopped in 1989.... "The court....entered judgment quieting title in Fl**** by adverse possession, subject to an existing bank loan and a $38,000 deed that Fl**** had executed in 1987 to equalize her down payment with H****." The house, jointly purchased for around $135,000 in the 1980s, was confirmed, as Fl****'s sole property. Zillow puts its value at about $4.2M. It's a charming house, built in the 1920's in a nostalgic Spanish style with 5 bedrooms, sitting on a large lot in a high end neighborhood of Los Angeles. Full detail available free at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B253697.PDF Point of this thread? Just another data point. Edited May 25, 2015 by SoleMate spacing Link to post Share on other sites
OldRover Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 That's interesting and sounds like a reasonable decision. Hightower should have been aggressive early on in protecting his rights... not wait many years. I could argue to be VERY careful in buying property with others, especially one in a committed relationship with you. I came close to doing this with a GF and would only do it if the agreement was in the form of a joint venture, not a shared property. Perhaps one own the property and the other hold a mortgage.... and a clear agreement on who pays what, if they can't live together. Or perhaps a specific agreement about the sale of the property, should a split up came about. Link to post Share on other sites
No Limit Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Sure an OW can win out if the MM is actually stupid enough to invest that much. But most of the time it's the MM saying "Jump!" and the OW asking "How high?". Nonetheless I find it curious that the W is never mentioned anywhere; I'm just going to assume here that they were seperated. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts