Your beloved of many years leaves you, wants to get his or her equity from the house you co-own. (Absolutely everything is 50/50, so don’t ask about down payments or anything.) You wish to remain in the house, potentially for the rest of your life, you love it, so you absolutely do not want to sell. Your ex would, obviously, sell in a heartbeat.
The simple answer would appear to be that you buy your ex’s half for the amount of their 50% equity, based on appraised value minus mortgages.
So far so good.
Here’s the big question: do you also factor in what commissions and costs would be if the house were sold to a third party, or not?
Here’s the simplistic arguments for both sides:
No, you don’t, because you are planning to live their forever and willnever have to pay such costs in a sale yourself, not to mention the fact that you are probably going to see the house appreciate over time so if you ever do sell, you will gain much more than these costs will cost you now.
Yes, you do, because your ex is threatening to sue you to force you to sell if you try to make him/her pay those costs, but if htey do that they will pay those costs plus the costs of the lawsuit! Not to mention the fact that you are strapped and may not be able to hold on to the house anyway, and it will be even harder if you have to take on so much more debt to pay the ex, which may find you in six months having to sell and at that point the market may have fallen AND you will have to pay the commissions for BOTH of you that the ex didn’t weaseled out of with you!
Any other arguments?
What’s your vote?
(Any data or real-world examples would be welcome, especially in California)