Hello,
10 years ago I bought a 4 suite building in Brooklyn with my best friend. We agreed at the time (verbally only, because we were best friends) that either party could get out of the venture after 3 years. The other partner could either buy them out or they would have to sell. 3 years later I moved to another city and asked to get out of the venture. My partner reneged on our agreement and told me I had to find someone to buy me out, which of course, being in another city, was virtually impossible. She finally admitted some years later to this agreement and that she had reneged on it in an email that I kept.
Now she has finally agreed to "take me up on our original agreement" to buy me out. I had the house appraised at my expense, and she agreed to take the average of the city tax valuation and the appraisal. We agree that, once all the obligations (mortgage balance, etc) are deducted and the proceeds divided in half, that we would also split the cost of the property transfer tax and each pay our own lawyer.
The hitch is that now she is quoting this forum, saying that I would also need to pay my half of the eventual costs of selling the house. My lawyer says this is unheard of.
Here is what she sent me from this forum to defend her argument:
"Have the house appraised to determine its current value. Then, subtract out all your expenses and costs, both ones you've actually incurred and ones that would be incurred if you sold. Then figure out his cut of the profit. That's what he would get if you actually sold, so pay him that amount."
"I can see both points of view. He wants out. That may require spending money you don't want to spend. My suggestion is essentially the partnership selling it to you. Note that I have included the selling costs, which right now would be about 12% of the value (6% commissions, 3% for closing costs and 3% for seller concessions). I don't think that is unreasonable, especially since you would be inheriting all future risk."
Please advise!!! Thanks
