He was never married but they bought a house together. She has moved out but the sale has falen through. He still lives there but his ex has stipulated that no-one else is allowed to move in. Is she legally correct?

What State? Yes, she can keep a third party from moving in. She can also prevent the property from being rented. Depending on the State it might take a Court proceeding.

If both of their names on are on the mortgage, deeds, whatever, then yes she has every right to say who moves in or not. She still owns half the house.

Tick

Thank you for a quick response. :)

No problem - hope you stick around and answer questions for other people.

I think I have to disagree with the answer everyone else has given.

The situation is that two un-related people own a house together. That is called "in common" ownership. If one such owner wants to rent or lease the premises to a third person, or invite such a third person to share occupancy of the premises with such third person, he can do so.


But I don't understand this part:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vlatter

...She has moved out but the sale has falen through. He still lives there ...

---

The mortgage payments are delinquent? What sale has fallen through? They were allowed to occupy the premises before the sale to them was completed? That is strange.

Is the property in foreclosure?

Are all of you saying that he can't put a tenant in possession, so as to try to save the property from foreclosure, without her consent? As I say, don't think she can object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

I think I have to disagree with the answer everyone else has given.

The situation is that two un-related people own a house together. That is called "in common" ownership. If one such owner wants to rent or lease the premises to a third person, or invite such a third person to share occupancy of the premises with such third person, he can do so.

---

Wouldn't permission have to be given by the other l/2 of the ownership? I think the OP will be happy with your determination because he has a g/f and I think, or presume to think, this is the reason for his question. I just can't see how he can move his g/f in, without seeking permission from the other owner, which would be rather an uncomfortable arrangement.

This is such a good reason why two people not totally committed to each other should buy property together.
Tick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

... I just can't see how he can move his g/f in, without seeking permission from the other owner, which would be rather an uncomfortable arrangement. ...

---

Uncomfortable? Who knows.

Who cares frankly? (rhetorical question)

To answer a legal question solely upon the supposition that someone might possibly feel "uncomfortable" about something is not a very reliable methodology.

Does he have the legal right to move someone into the premises? I think so.

So he moves someone in, the other 1/2 owner can't evict since one of the owners allows them to stay.
This happens every day on here, someone comes in and say, that they and their husband own a house, the husband lets his adult son stay in house, the wife wants step son out, she can not evict as long as husband wants them there.

So she may have a right to say no, but once the other person is moved in, they can't do anything about it anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

Uncomfortable? Who knows.

Who cares frankly? (rhetorical question)

To answer a legal question solely upon the supposition that someone might possibly feel "uncomfortable" about something is not a very reliable methodology.

Does he have the legal right to move someone into the premises? I think so.

---

Your take is probably purely legal, and impartial, that's okay, that is what you do, I however tend to see the other 'side of the coin' , whereby OP wants to move his new g/f in, has had opposition and perhaps a little jealousy from his ex, so feels this might upset the applecart. That is what I meant. I care because that is what I do.
Tick