[Slipstream]

Myself and my two siblings inherited a house in Florida. In the will it was stated that I could live in the house until I voluntarily wanted to move. It was also stated in the will that no forced sale of the house would be permitted and that all three siblings would have to agree to a sale. My question is this: Since there are no funds in the will to pay for yearly taxes and insurance on the house... who is responsible for paying those items? Is it the person occupying the house or all three siblings?

[joypulv]

I'm amazed that the will didn't specify some terms for your right to live there, but if that's really true, then all three of you owe equally.

[AK lawyer]

Despite the testamentary prohibition on a sale of the house without the agreement of all of you, if the taxes or insurance remain unpaid so as to threaten a loss of the house, any one of you could petition the court for an order that it be paid (This type of action is called "partition".) If you are currently occupying the house, you should pay the taxes and insurance. If you don't, I believe either one of your siblings could take you to court as I have suggested.

You should insist upon a written agreement with your siblings that gives you the right to exclusive occupancy, in return for payment of the taxes and insurance.

[ScottGem]

I'm assuming the house is mortgage free. In that case, since you are the one benefiting from occupancy of the property, you should be paying the upkeep. If you want to keep a record of what you paid so that will come off the proceeds when the house is sold you can try for that.

[LisaB4657]

...if the taxes or insurance remain unpaid so as to threaten a loss of the house, any one of you could petition the court for an order that it be paid (This type of action is called "partition".) ...

This is not correct. An action for partition is an action to force the sale of land and division of the profits, or to force the division of the land into separate parcels.

[LisaB4657]

All owners of the property are responsible for taxes, insurance and any necessary maintenance. However if the costs of those items increase due to your specific use of the property other than as a general residence then you would be responsible for the additional cost. For example if you started a business at the property that caused an increase in taxes, insurance and maintenance then you would be responsible for paying the increase.

[AK lawyer]

This is not correct. An action for partition is an action to force the sale of land and division of the profits, or to force the division of the land into separate parcels.

There is no requirement that joint owners contribute to taxes and insurance paid by one of them when, as in this case, there is not agreement among them. Should OP bring an action against the siblings saying "I have paid the taxes and want you to pay your fair share", they could very reasonably respond that they didn't ask OP to pay them, are not contractually obligated, or otherwise obligated by law, to do so. There is no law that says one has to to insure one's property. Neither is it required that one pay property tax paid by another. If the tax is not paid, the remedy of the taxing authority would be one in rem to foreclose on the property. The taxing authority in most jurisdictions cannot sue the owners in personem.


So the way to force them to ante up would be to bring an action for partition.

In-common ownership of real property is usually a bad idea, because there is usually no contract, or statutory rules, governing the respective rights and obligations of the co-owners. So, in settlement of estates, to distribute real property to several joint owners is normally an invitation to eventual litigation.

[LisaB4657]

There is no requirement that joint owners contribute to taxes and insurance paid by one of them when, as in this case, there is not agreement among them.

Of course there is. Or do you just not like the provisions of 20 Am Jur 2d Co-Tenancy and Joint Ownership Secs. 56 through 66?

Should OP bring an action against the siblings saying "I have paid the taxes and want you to pay your fair share", they could very reasonably respond that they didn't ask OP to pay them, are not contractually obligated, or otherwise obligated by law, to do so.

Sure, they can respond that way. But they're going to lose.

There is no law that says one has to to insure one's property.

True. But there is a house on the property. Maintaining insurance coverage on that house is "for the benefit and preservation" of the property and the OP is entitled to contribution.

Neither is it required that one pay property tax paid by another. If the tax is not paid, the remedy of the taxing authority would be one in rem to foreclose on the property. The taxing authority in most jurisdictions cannot sue the owners in personem.

So the way to force them to ante up would be to bring an action for partition.

That would be one way. But it would be the wrong way. Because once a judge hears that the basis for the action is failure of the co-owners to reimburse the OP for payment of real estate taxes and maintenance expenses the judge is going to toss the case out and tell the OP to bring it to civil court, where the civil court judge will award reimbursement to the OP for the other owners' proportionate shares.

[joypulv]

Slipstream, I trust that you can see now how much legal wrangling could happen (at great expense) if you expect siblings to foot those bills for you. You don't say why you were given use of the house without terms - totally disabled, poured thousands into repairs, were the caretaker of the person who owned it? Or why you think you should get away with this if it was just a poorly written will.

How do you plan to make your siblings pay if they choose not to? Even winning in court doesn't guarantee that they will pay.
As stated above, the city doesn't go after each owner. They just foreclose after enough unpaid taxes have accrued. With interest. The property is sold for less than it's worth, the tax lien is paid, and you all lose.

How about a little practicality, if this boils down to inability to cover expenses by yourself. Sell the house now and use your one third as a down payment on a small condo. Don't have siblings who hate you.

[AK lawyer]

Of course there is. Or do you just not like the provisions of 20 Am Jur 2d Co-Tenancy and Joint Ownership Secs. 56 thru 66?
...

Can't say. I don't have access to Am Jur 2d.