In a house with shared ownership, if one person moves out and the other assumes mortgage, how do we determine who owns what share in the end?
This is something you should decide as part of entering a partnership with someone. Ideally before you make the initial purchase you have a detailed contract written up.  If you have already bought the house and someone is now ready to move out the easiest thing to do is sell the house. If that is not an option, you'll have to decide on a plan together and then get it in writing. I second (or fifth?) the answers of the other users in that this should have been foreseen and discussed prior to entering the partnership.  But to offer a potential solution: If the mortgage company allows you to assume the whole mortgage (big if) you could buy the other partner out. To determine what a fair buyout would be, take the current value of the house less the remaining mortgage to get the current equity. Half that is each partner's current gain (or potentially loss), and could be considered a fair buyout. At this point the partner realizes any gains made in the last 5 years, and from now on the whole house (and any future gains or losses) will be yours. Alternatively your partner could remain a full partner (if s/he so desires) until the house sells. You would see the house as a separate business, split the cost as you have, and you would pay fair market rent each month (half of which would come back to you). A third option would be to refinance the house, with you as a sole mortgage holder. To factor in how much your partner should receive out of the transaction, you can take his/her current equity and subtract half of the costs associated with the refi. I would also recommend both of you seek out the help of a real estate lawyer at this point to help you draft an agreement. It sounds like you're still on good terms, so you could see a lawyer together; this would be helpful because they should know all the things you should look out for in a situation like this. Good luck! The ownership of the house depends on what the original deed transferring title at the time of purchase says and how this ownership is listed in government records where the title transfer deed is registered. Hopefully the  two records are consistent.  In legal systems that descended from British common law (including the US), the two most common forms of ownership are tenancy in common meaning that, unless otherwise specified in the title deed, each of the owners has an equal share in the entire property, and can sell or bequeath his/her share without requiring the approval  of the others, and joint tenancy with right of survivorship meaning  that all owners have equal share, and if one owner  dies, the survivors form a new JTWROS. Spouses generally own property,  especially the home, in a special kind of JTWROS called tenancy by the entirety. On the other hand, the rule is that unless explicitly specified otherwise, tenancy in common with equal shares is how the owners hold the property. Other countries may have different default assumptions, and/or have multiple other forms of ownership (see e.g. here for the intricate rules applicable in India). Mortgages are a different issue. Most mortgages state that the mortgagees are jointly and severally liable for the mortgage  payments meaning that the mortgage holder does not care who makes the payment but only that the mortgage payment is made in full. If one owner refuses to pay his share, the others cannot send in their shares of the mortgage payment due and tell the bank to sue the recalcitrant co-owner for his share of the payment: everybody is liable (and can be sued) for the unpaid amount, and if the bank forecloses, everybody's share in the property is seized, not just the share owned by the recalcitrant person.  It is, of course, possible to for different co-owners to have separate mortgages for their individual shares, but the legalities (including questions such as whose lien is primary and whose secondary) are complicated. With regard to who paid what over the years of ownership, it does not matter as far as the ownership is concerned. If it is a tenancy in common with equal shares, the fact that the various owners paid the bills (mortgage payments, property taxes, repairs and maintenance) in unequal amounts does not  change the ownership of the property unless a new deed is recorded with the new percentages.  Now, the co-owners may decide among themselves as a matter of fairness that any money realized from a sale of the property should be divided up in accordance with the proportion that each contributed during the ownership, but that is a different issue. If I were a buyer of property titled as tenancy in common, I (or the bank who is lending me money to make the purchase) would issue separate checks to each co-seller in proportion to the percentages listed on the deed of ownership, and let them worry about whether they should transfer money among themselves to make it equitable. (Careful here! Gift taxes might  well be due if large sums of money change hands). "The answer is ""it depends"".  What does it depend on? If it's a breakup situation, good luck. Whatever you do, get this issue settled as quickly as possible. In the future, don't make significant purchases with people unless you have a written contract or you are married." "Both names are on the deed, so the property is jointly owned. You're going to need the second person's signature to be able to sell the property. Ideally the way to know ""what happens now"" is to consult the written agreement you made before you purchased the house together. The formula for dividing up assets when dissolving your partnership is whatever you agreed to up front. (Your up-front agreement could have said ""if you move out, you forfeit any claim to the property"".) It sounds like you don't have that, so you'll have to come to some (written) agreement with your partner before you proceed. If you can't come to an agreement, then you'll end up in court, a judge will split up the assets, and the only winners there are the lawyers..." Let's look at the logical extreme. Two people get a house, no money down, 10 year mortgage. One moves out the day after the closing, and the gal left pays the full mortgage. Why in the world would the one who left be entitled to a dime?  You offer no information about the downpayment or amount paid during the time both lived there. That's the data needed to do any math. This is typically an issue for local law and regulation.  Once one person moves out, I would recommend one of the following options: Generally speaking, if there are clear records of all of the payments made by both parties, all of the costs associated with the maintenance and who made what use of the place, the final ownership can be resolved fairly even in the absence of a clear agreement. The pain and hassle to do it, though, is generally not worth the effort - even if it's an amicable relationship between the two owners. Your best bet is to agree as early as possible on what you plan to do, and to write it down - if you didn't have a contract before moving in together, write one up now. Market value and assessments are two different things. No matter how amical the agreement seems on buying and selling, the future could result in damaged relationships without an absolute sale. I would strongly recommend getting into an agreement to split the purchase of a house as a means to save money. If it's too late, sell immediately.
"In finance, form is function, and while a reason for a trade could be anything, but since the result of a trade is a change in value, it could be presumed that one seeks to receive a change in value. Stock company There may have been more esoteric examples, but currently, possession of a company (total ownership of its' assets actually) is delineated by percentage or a glorified ""banknote"" frequently called a ""share"".  Percentage companies are usually sole proprietorship and partnerships, but partnerships can now trade in ""units"".  Share companies are usually corporations. With shares, a company can be divided into almost totally indistinguishable units.  This allows for more flexible ownership, so individuals can trade them without having to change the company contract. Considering the ease of trade, it could be assumed that common stock contract provisions were formulated to provide for such an ease. Motivation to trade This could be anything, but it seems those with the largest ownership of common stock have lots of wealth, so it could be assumed that people at least want to own stocks to own wealth. Shorting might be a little harder to reason, but I personally assume that the motivation to trade is still to increase wealth. Social benefit of the stock market Assuming that ownership in a company is socially valuable and that the total value of ownership is proportional to the social value provided, the social benefit of a stock market is that it provided the means to scale ownership through convenience, speed, and reliability." What do you see as the advantage of doing this? When you buy a house with a mortgage, the bank gets a lien on the house you are buying, i.e. the house you are buying is the collateral. Why would you need additional or different collateral? As to using the house for your down payment, that would require giving the house to the seller, or selling the house and giving the money to the seller. If the house was 100% yours and you don't have any use for it once you buy the second house, that would be a sensible plan. Indeed that's what most people do when they buy a new house: sell the old one and use the money as down payment on the new one. But in this case, what would happen to the co-owner? Are they going to move to the new house with you? The only viable scenario I see here is that you could get a home equity loan on the first house, and then use that money as the down payment on the second house, and thus perhaps avoid having to pay for mortgage insurance. As DanielAnderson says, the bank would probably require the signature of the co-owner in such a case. If you defaulted on the loan, the bank could then seize the house, sell it, and give the co-owner some share of the money. I sincerely doubt the bank would be interested in an arrangement where if you default, they get half interest in the house but are not allowed to sell it without the co-owner's consent. What would a bank do with half a house? Maybe, possibly they could rent it out, but most banks are not in the rental business. So if you defaulted, the co-owner would get kicked out of the house. I don't know who this co-owner is. Sounds like you'd be putting them in a very awkward position. I think you're looking at the picture in an odd way. When each of you made your initial investments and determined what portions you owned, that gave the company capital that they could use to finance its operations. In return, you are entitled to the future profits of the company (in proportion to your ownership). Any future investment by either of you is at your own discretion. Your company now faces a situation where it would like to pursue a potentially lucrative opportunity, but needs more capital than it has to do so. So, you need to raise more capital. That capital can come from one or both of you (or from an outsider). Since that investment would be discretionary, what the investor gets is a negotiation: the company negotiates with the investor how much equity (in the form of new shares) to award in exchange for the new investment (or whatever other compensation you decide on, if not equity). What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future. My mortgage is with WF. I want to get away from them. I'm going to try to move in a year or two, and then I'll make sure I never touch them again.  I have an account with a credit union. I'll be transferring everything over to there. Another thing to consider is how much longer you wish to stay in this home & what you will do with it when you move. I had planned on doing exactly this, but we are more likely to keep our home when we move out and use it as rental property.  If we went down this route, we would have a lot of equity  (perhaps even paid off) in our home, but would have little left to save towards the next home down payment. You can look at the company separately from the ownership. The company needs money that it doesn't have, therefore it needs to borrow money from somewhere or go bankrupt.  And if they can't get money from their bank, then they can of course ask people related to the company, like the two shareholders, for a loan. It's a loan, like every other loan, that needs to be repaid. How big the loan is doesn't depend on the ownership, but on how much money each one is willing and capable of giving. The loan doesn't give them any rights in the company, except the right to get their money back with interest in the future.  Alternatively, such a company might have 200 shares, and might have given 75 to one owner and 25 to the other owner, keeping 100 shares back. In that case, the shareholders can decide to sell some of these 100 shares. I might buy 10 shares for $1,000 each, so the company has now $10,000 cash, and I have some ownership of the company (about 9.09%, and the 75% and 25% shares have gone down, because now they own 75 out of 110 or 25 out of 110 shares). I won't get the $10,000 back, ever; it's not a loan but the purchase of part of the company. Rent doesn't give you any ownership in a property, so is largely irrelevant here. If you were paying rent after the death of your parents, that money would go to the owners of the house (which may include you). Similarly, whether or not someone was evicted is completely irrelevant. If the will specifies how the estate should be divided, that's what's relevant here. You seem to imply that the house was left to 10 people. Barring specific other arrangements, the most likely case is that the house will be sold by the executrices and the proceeds divided evenly between all ten people. Again, though, it's going to depend on the specifics of the will. There are many possible cases where you may end up with nothing. For example, if there are a lot of debts, these must be paid off before dividing up the money from the sale of the house. If you are not getting the answers you need from the executrices, you need to consult a lawyer.