Tweet
My mother in Washington has a community property that her late husband and she split into two units and rented out. His daughter, call her "Jane", is about 33 and financially insolvent. She has been living rent-free in the smaller unit for a few years. When her husband died 1.5 years ago, he willed that unit to Jane. The deed and mortgage are still fully in my mom's name. My mom now needs to retire. But to financially do so, she needs to sell the property to get out of the remaining mortgage debt. My mom got her stepdaughter Jane to sign a contract allowing the overall property to be sold as long as Jane got 40% of the proceeds. However, Jane has since backed out of that contract and is now refusing to "allow" the property to be sold, just via email, nothing legal as yet. So my primary question is - Is my mother stuck paying the mortgage indefinitely while her now estranged stepdaughter lives there for free and gets the benefits of increasing equity over time?
There's some more specific questions to consider too. In the first place, was the late husband allowed to will part of that property to his daughter when it wasn't paid off yet and the mortgage was also in my mother's name? Is Jane in fact only entitled to the equity built up when her dad died, times the appraised value of her lot (about 25% of the total property), times one-half since my mom owns the other half? This seems ethical and would be 12.5% of the proceeds rather than the generous 40% my mother offered before. Is there any legality to Jane not "allowing" the property to be sold, or legal risk if my mom just sells it anyway, especially considering she has a signed contract from Jane allowing her to sell, if Jane gets 40%?
There's some more specific questions to consider too. In the first place, was the late husband allowed to will part of that property to his daughter when it wasn't paid off yet and the mortgage was also in my mother's name? Is Jane in fact only entitled to the equity built up when her dad died, times the appraised value of her lot (about 25% of the total property), times one-half since my mom owns the other half? This seems ethical and would be 12.5% of the proceeds rather than the generous 40% my mother offered before. Is there any legality to Jane not "allowing" the property to be sold, or legal risk if my mom just sells it anyway, especially considering she has a signed contract from Jane allowing her to sell, if Jane gets 40%?
Comment