Home     Forum     401k     401k Rollovers
    Register   Login   Members   Search   FAQs     Recent Posts    




dividing of Lots who should pay

Reply to topic
Money Talk > The Green Room

Author Thread
robbieoz
New Member


Cash: $ 0.85

Posts: 4
Joined: 23 Sep 2010
Location: Shoalhaven Heads Australia
dividing of Lots who should pay  Reply with quote  

Hi
I hope someone can solve this for me.
Our Company has 4 parcels of land, all different sizes.
Lot 1 is worth Approx $150.00
Lot 2 is worth less
Lot 3 is worth less than other 2.
Lot 4 cost is undetermined but possibly worth more than other 3
In an agreement where we all agreed, I ended up with Lot 3, which is worth the least.
However it was agreed by all that when Lot 4 is sold, I would receive 55% of sale, Lot 2 owner would get 33% and Lot 1 owner the residue.
Now here is the problem.
There are ongoing costs with keeping Lot 4, rates, improvements etc etc.
The other owners say that I should pay 55% of all costs, with others paying their percentage.
But I disagree, but I just cant put my finger on why I disagree, its very hard to work out, but I feel I am being gyped.
Is there a formula...
Hope someone can help.
Rob Bell
jungle@shoal.net.au
Post Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
coaster
Senior Advisor


Cash: $ 1626.30

Posts: 7990
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

I doubt there's a lot that sells for as little as $150 anywhere in the world, unless maybe it's a little parcel in the deepest jungles of New Guinea. I'm thinking this is a math problem you're looking for someone to work out for you. Close?

~Tim~
Post Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:19 am
 View user's profile Send private message
robbieoz
New Member


Cash: $ 0.85

Posts: 4
Joined: 23 Sep 2010
Location: Shoalhaven Heads Australia
dividing of Lots who should pay  Reply with quote  

I meant to write $150.000.00 ie One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars
Post Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:55 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
coaster
Senior Advisor


Cash: $ 1626.30

Posts: 7990
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

There's no formula, but it seems to be the sort of thing one could work out in a spread sheet. If you'd care to provide the data for the other two lots, I might be willing to give it a shot over the weekend if you're not spreadsheet-savvy. I also need to know the cost of each and how much each party paid, and finally the time horizon.

~Tim~
Post Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:33 am
 View user's profile Send private message
robbieoz
New Member


Cash: $ 0.85

Posts: 4
Joined: 23 Sep 2010
Location: Shoalhaven Heads Australia
dividing of Lots who should pay  Reply with quote  

Can't seem to find what the valuers valued the 4 Lots at, bummer.
But after we got the value, of each lot, because of the disparity, the solicitor worked out the %. for the return of any monies when Lot 5 is sold
Lot 8 11%
Lot 6 33.1%
Lot 7 55.9%

Lot 4 the Lot no one wanted, is the one to be sold, and the profits divided % as above.
As I am the owner of Lot (the least valued lot) then I get the greater share of the profit from the sale of Lot 4.
However why should I contribute paying levies at 55.9%, thats my quandary.

All the Lots are fully paid for and are part of a large parcel of land of which all parties bought evenly. We then divided off 4 lots...one for each of us and for general sale.

Hope this helps.
Rob
Post Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:13 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
coaster
Senior Advisor


Cash: $ 1626.30

Posts: 7990
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

I didn't have a chance to get on the board this weekend, but I'll copy the info and see if I can do something with it this week.

~Tim~
Post Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:35 am
 View user's profile Send private message
robbieoz
New Member


Cash: $ 0.85

Posts: 4
Joined: 23 Sep 2010
Location: Shoalhaven Heads Australia
who should pay  Reply with quote  

The person who got the lowest price Lot 6 is being penalised by paying 55.9% of Lot 5,(owned by all) because at the end of the day, when all Lots are sold, he is till only going to get the same valuation as agreed on, because if his Lot improves so do the others. Given the size etc,
But he has been paying 55.9 into Lot 5 all these years, and at the end of the day he has gone backwards, whilst the person who is only paying 11% is doing nicely.
Not only will he sell his Lot more, but also has paid the least to keep Lot5.
Lot 5 is only an entity, a block of wood a piece of steel, and there it sits, waiting to be sold. It is owned by everyone and therefore it should be looked after by everyone, equally. If it is sold for say $100 Grand then the it is given out as agreed.
The the lots are sold and I will still get the least amount, but hopefully my % from Lot 5 will bring me up to their level.
To keep it going, it has to be paid for equally.
Rob
Post Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:08 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
coaster
Senior Advisor


Cash: $ 1626.30

Posts: 7990
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

I finally got a chance to look at this and actually started entering stuff in a spreadsheet, then reviewed your post and was aghast to find we're not dealing with four lots, but (including your last post) who knows how many all of different valuations etc etc., then after thinking about this a bit, it became crystal clear.

ALL THOSE OTHER LOTS, WHO GOT WHICH, HOW MUCH THEY'RE WORTH ETC ETC ---

IS ALL IRRELEVANT

The question is about lot 4; the agreement concerns lot 4, and the agreement is that you would receive 55%, another gets 33% and another the balance.

First of all, who gets what when the lot is sold should be in proportion to what was invested. The gain is the selling price minus the original cost minus the carrying & improvement costs. If the split in the gain is 55% to you, then it's reasonable to see you paying 55% of the cost as well. If the original cost is nothing, then the final cost is just the carrying costs plus the improvements.

Based on the information presented here, information which is incomplete and uncertain, it sounds like an equitable agreement.

BTW, you're using a lot of high-charged financial terminology, terminology with very definite meaning, such as "residue", "valuation", "penalised", "entity", "as agreed", "profit", "levies", and so forth, which may have totally different meaning here than there.

I think the best thing you can do would be to hire a person we'd probably describe here as "financial counsel", that is to say, an attorney who is also an accountant, and who deals with financial transactions such as yours, so you have someone who does understand all the nuances and can represent your interests.

But about all I can say is: 55% in, 55% out .... sounds like a fair deal to me. Smile

~Tim~
Post Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
  Display posts from previous:      





Money Talk © 2003-2016