Is this really an issue of Legal vs. Moral?

[newbi]

Hi, just making a survey on who is more justified?

There were a group of siblings who put up a house and lot as a common family residence and shared in funding it through years of labor until it was fully paid.
BUT only 2 siblings get to have their names put in the title coz the other siblings do not hold citizenship but there was a verbal agreement that the proceeds (thru rent or sale) will be shared accordingly.

That is, until it was found out that the non-citizen siblings have the option of forming a corporation or a debtor and creditor contract (preferably due to lower process fees) for the non-citizen siblings to have their names noted in the title so that the non-citizen siblings can protect their interest in the property legally.

But the owner siblings felt that such move reflects mistrust among siblings and suspects that once the other non-citizen siblings have their names included as creditor, the owner siblings (as debtor will have difficulty selling off the property in the future when they want to if the other non-citizen siblings (as creditors) still do not want to.

if the non-citizen siblings insist on the corporation or debtor and creditor contract, the owner siblings would rather sell off the property NOW and divide the proceeds .

So who is more justified - the owner siblings or the non-citizen siblings? and why

[AFFA]

I wish to inform you that is the property is sold and proceeds is divided then all the siblings can get a share without any dispute. If the property is kept in the name of two siblings then in future there can be a dispute. If property is kept in the name of corporation and siblings then the ownership agreement and possession rights between owners will determine rights. The siblings in whose name property is registered have full right at present to deal with the property.

AFF

[Maryellen]

If all the siblings are involved in this I don't know why the owner siblings would be afraid that the non-owners would block the sale. It seems that the non-owners should have the right to block it even if their names are not on it.

I think the non-owners have the right to get their names on it since they found a loophole that allows non-citizens to get their names on the lease.

[Friend In Court]

Originally Posted by newbi Hi, just making a survey on who is more justified? There were a group of siblings who put up a house and lot as a common family residence and shared in funding it through years of labor until it was fully paid. BUT only 2 siblings get to have their names put in the title coz the other siblings do not hold citizenship but there was a verbal agreement that the proceeds (thru rent or sale) will be shared accordingly. That is, until it was found out that the non-citizen siblings have the option of forming a corporation or a debtor and creditor contract (preferably due to lower process fees) for the non-citizen siblings to have their names noted in the title so that the non-citizen siblings can protect their interest in the property legally. But the owner siblings felt that such move reflects mistrust among siblings and suspects that once the other non-citizen siblings have their names included as creditor, the owner siblings (as debtor will have difficulty selling off the property in the future when they want to if the other non-citizen siblings (as creditors) still do not want to. if the non-citizen siblings insist on the corporation or debtor and creditor contract, the owner siblings would rather sell off the property NOW and divide the proceeds . So who is more justified - the owner siblings or the non-citizen siblings? and why

First of all this is a family matter and things need to be worked out so there is harmony. What is right and just for all concerned is the heart of the matter. Everything revolves around trust and good will between these siblings.

Putting aside the financial contortions, the siblings who contributed their labor have an equitable interest in the property -- no matter what the title (deed) says and can assert their claim.

There is nothing stopping the family members from agreeing that each will receive their share of equity when it is sold and proceeding accordingly, citizenship or not.

My advice is to consult an attorney to have a contract drawn between the siblings so that should familial love, trust and honor somehow vaporize each will be protected.

[newbi]

Thanking AFFA, Mary Ellen and Friend in court for your useful comments. Further comments are still welcome

[jefferywhite81]

I am going with legal, because moral has no proof but if you do process with legal then I think it will helps to you in every matter. Thanks for sharing such a nice information with us.