I need objective views over a family dispute.

[Just Blue]

So you're saying the fact that we had a verbal agreement that it was all to share in 3 is completely irrelevant?

It's unenforceable. Had you bothered to get your head out of your oblivious *** you would have known this.

 

[LdiJ]

Geez, haven't all you senior members twigged to this yet?

"Objective view" = "agreeing that the OP is right"

You all should know that by now.

He is not the first person on these forums that I have had to explain the concept of "profit" to in a rental situation. They all think that the gross rents received are just money that goes into someone's pocket, and that expenses are minimal if any. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is also not the first person I have run into who doesn't understand that the person doing all of the work actually deserves some compensation for that.

 

[Cpw vuk]

Remember on 13. that she agreed in person on selling everything and sharing in 3.
She even agreed she deserved less because she has lived rent free for years and not us.
Then she disappeared and came back on her commitment.

 

[Just Blue]

Only to the immoral rotten degenerate evil wouldn't it make sense.

I don't know what country you are from, but are all the "men" there as childish and self-centered as you?

 

[Cpw vuk]

It's unenforceable. Had you bothered to get your head out of your oblivious *** you would have known this.

Ok.. So as I said, So you're saying the fact that we had a verbal agreement that it was all to share in 3 is completely irrelevant.
She is right. And we are wrong.
Now she is rich. And we are poor.
Goctha.

 

[Just Blue]

Remember on 13. that she agreed in person on selling everything and sharing in 3.
She even agreed she deserved less because she has lived rent free for years and not us.
Then she disappeared and came back on her commitment.

Whatever. She educated herself and realized the "agreement" was not only ridiculously unfair to her, but also legally unenforceable.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree I may be off base. She may be too.
You are too by speculating on an asset you never seen.

Dude, I am a tax consultant. I have seen the gross rents and the expenses for many trailor parks. I know that the profits of trailor parks (the actual money left over after expenses) are rarely more than 10-15% of gross rents, and often just break even or run at a small loss. I don't need to see an asset to know what is typical for that kind of business.

 

[not2cleverRed]

I don't know what country you are from, but are all the "men" there as childish and self-centered as you?

Probably.

Boys are cherished saints, girls are workhorses and burdens.

 

[Just Blue]

Ok.. So as I said, So you're saying the fact that we had a verbal agreement that it was all to share in 3 is completely irrelevant.
She is right. And we are wrong.
Now she is rich. And we are poor.
Goctha.

If she is "rich" it's because she busted her butt. If you are poor it's because you sat back expecting your sister to do everything.

 

[Cpw vuk]

I don't know what country you are from, but are all the "men" there as childish and self-centered as you?

You don't know what caused me to lose 90% of my lifetime battling demons.
Stop polluting a serious thread with your immature takes, buddy.

Anyone with serious advices, you are welcome here.

 

[Ohiogal]

So you're saying the fact that we had a verbal agreement that it was all to share in 3 is completely irrelevant?

YES. Because it was about real property. ALL real property contracts must be in writing. Your father GIFTED the money to your sister. YOu said that in your first post. There was no conditions on it. There was no contract between the three of you. No consideration.

 

[Cpw vuk]

YES. Because it was about real property. ALL real property contracts must be in writing. Your father GIFTED the money to your sister. YOu said that in your first post. There was no conditions on it. There was no contract between the three of you. No consideration.

He gave her the money after she found the condo through a realtor, to buy it under her name, for the 3 of us.
Under the verbal condition that it would be so the 3 of us always have a roof over our head.
He didn't just give her the money like that out of nowhere and for no reason.

(Hypothetically) What if I could make her sign a contract today saying the initial investment for for the 3 of us?
Would that mean the plus value after 10 years is for all 3 of us.
Or would that mean only initial investment is to the 3 of us, and the 10 years plus value is all hers?

 

[AlmostThere]

At least now I know "senior member" really don't mean shit here.
Gfoh

Just because you don't like the answer does not mean it is wrong.

 

[Ohiogal]

He gave her the money after she found the condo through a realtor, to buy it under her name, for the 3 of us.

NO SUCH THING. She could not buy it under her name for the three of you to own. She bought it under her name for the three of you to live in maybe. But it was HER property. She was the only owner. If there was supposed to be a return on investment then that should have been reduced to writing. YOU ARE WRONG. YOU are due NOTHING.