How to Sell Land Owned by Multiple Owners

My question involves real estate located in the State of: Oregon

So recently I came into ownership of a piece of land in Oregon. This land has three owners, myself, my uncle and my aunt. I was left the land by my recent father. This land is owned by all three but has never been divided up. On this land is a lot of timber old and new growth (quoted at worth $1 mil plus), a natural spring, and a farm with a house coming in at about 75 acres in total.

The problem is my uncle doesn't want to sell the land but has offered to buy out my father previous to him passing away. I would have considered the offer however the amount offered was about 20% of what my third was worth. My aunt doesn't even live in the US anymore due to legal reasons. So I am finding myself in a difficult position with the whole wanting to sell the land thing. I recently got the land/timber appraised and the appraiser offered to buy it due to the timber being worth so much.

My main question is this: Can I push for a force sell or just sell my third? I have no reason to want to keep the land, since I don't live anywhere near it. I am also unemployed and could really use the money.

I have no interest in keeping the land nor selling it to my uncle for so low. I know its best to settle outside of court but I don't think that will be a possibility. I am planning on taking the appraisal to my uncle to see if he will buy me out for at least 80-90% of what its worth but he hasn't been very cooperative up to this point.

What are my options here?

Your options are to sell your portion or to file a partition lawsuit. Because aunt is outside of the country, the partition lawsuit will be even more costly than usual.

Your best option right now is to make a deal with uncle. You might also force the issue by harvesting the timber and splitting the profits.

I would file for partition ASAP, assuming that you are all joint tenants and not tenants in common.

It will force the uncle to decide about buying you out at a fair price or going along with the partition, which would likely result in a public auction.

It will also put the aunt on notice. She can easily go along with it if she wishes. The fact that she is out of the country is only significant in that it may serve to delay things if she doesn't respond timely. If she just ignores it, it will eventually go ahead anyway without further reference to her until it is time to distribute the proceeds.

If you try to sell your portion to a third party, they will likely be looking to immediately force a partition anyway and walk away with a profit. They will be expecting you to provide the profit by selling to them at a discount from the actual value.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

It will also put the aunt on notice. She can easily go along with it if she wishes. The fact that she is out of the country is only significant in that it may serve to delay things if she doesn't respond timely. If she just ignores it, it will eventually go ahead anyway without further reference to her until it is time to distribute the proceeds.

---

She is not "ignoring" it until she officially knows about it. Depending on the country, that is going to take time and money.

http://www.americanbar.org/newslette.../oct99bur.html

Quote:

---

Depending on the country, that is going to take time and money.

---

That's true, and we don't know the country, but if it is a signatory to the Hague Convention, it could be as simple as a registered or certified letter, under $12 postage to most countries. In such a case the issue is time, not money. The link you posted confirms this.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

That's true, and we don't know the country, but if it is a signatory to the Hague Convention, it could be as simple as a registered or certified letter, under $12 postage to most countries. In such a case the issue is time, not money. The link you posted confirms this.

---

The author was not keen on that method. Even in a country where that is so, this article points out the specific problems. (Although the ninth circuit allows for this type of service.)

http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/c...1110/weiss.pdf

Quote:

---

Even in a country where that is so, this article points out the specific problems.

---

You are nitpicking the situation. For what purpose, I cannot fathom.

The OP stands to gain $333,000 or so just from the timber share. We don't yet know his share from the acreage and other improvements. He says he wants the money. What do you think would be a large sum to pay to get the aunt notified? If over $12, how much? You are suggesting a hesitation to proceed based on the cost and "problems" of notifying the aunt. That is absurd in a situation such as the OP finds himself, with possibly half a million dollars or more involved. The OP should have no trouble finding an attorney competent to deal with the notice situation, however long it might take.

Personally I would have no problem paying thousands of dollars to get the aunt notified. What is too much to pay in this situation?

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

You are nitpicking the situation. For what purpose, I cannot fathom.

The OP stands to gain $333,000 or so just from the timber share. We don't yet know his share from the acreage and other improvements. He says he wants the money. What do you think would be a large sum to pay to get the aunt notified? If over $12, how much? You are suggesting a hesitation to proceed based on the cost and "problems" of notifying the aunt. That is absurd in a situation such as the OP finds himself, with possibly half a million dollars or more involved. The OP should have no trouble finding an attorney competent to deal with the notice situation, however long it might take.

Personally I would have no problem paying thousands of dollars to get the aunt notified. What is too much to pay in this situation?

---

Negotiation is better than litigation. You are recommending the OP open litigation as a negotiating strategy. That is not the best course. He is an owner right now. Why does he not contract for the sale of the timber and split the profits with the other owners? There is that "timber share" right there without the litigation. Once litigation begins, it can be hard to end. Why pay thousands to get aunt notified when there could be other avenues open? He can always go the litigation route. What is absurd is to not look at other avenues before dropping the bomb. No one really wins in a partition suit. They are expensive and can take a long time.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

I would file for partition ASAP, assuming that you are all joint tenants and not tenants in common.

---

Huh? A tenant in common cannot file a partition suit?

Quote:

---

Why does he not contract for the sale of the timber and split the profits with the other owners?

---

Because until there is s a partition, agreed or ordered, he has no legal right to do so.

Quote:

---

No one really wins in a partition suit.

---

I have been a winner in a partition suit. If you have been in a partition suit, you must have been a loser. Or you if you have no experience in the matter you are just making up your comment through a desire to make a comment.

Yes, negotiation is best, but you are already on notice that it has been tried with the uncle and the aunt is, as you say is expensive to contact.........

The OP is kind of the poster person for why partition suits exist at the law.

Quote:

---

Huh? A tenant in common cannot file a partition suit?

---

I didn't say that, did I? Huh?

Joint tenants have equal shares. Tenants in common do not necessarily have equal shares or the same rights as joint tenants. A tenant in common might have a different viewpoint of a particular situation from a joint tenant.