Leasing an undivided interest

[Lexington]

I am wondering that if I owned an undivided interest in a tract, would I have the authority to lease the property for hunting without the permission of the other interest owners assuming there were no agreements made beforehand prohibiting such actions? Would the other owners be entitled to a portion of the revenue if the land were leased?

[hero_moneybags]

Short answer is no.

[texashunter56]

I would say no. You own a % of a property but that portion's actual acreage you own is not really designated. If you leased it then they should get their portion of the leasing price. I assume you are talking a hunting lease.

[Lexington]

Do you know what would be preventing me from leasing out the property without the consent of the other owners assuming they are paid their fair share?

[RR 314]

You apparently have the perceived authority to do so. :-) When such questions arise, you generally can find the answer by evaluating what your position would be if a similarly situated person did so without your consent. :-). If you can lease it without consent of others, can you have a clear-cut without consent? How about opening up a bunny-ranch trailer park?

[Lexington]

You apparently have the perceived authority to do so. :-) When such questions arise, you generally can find the answer by evaluating what your position would be if a similarly situated person did so without your consent. :-). If you can lease it without consent of others, can you have a clear-cut without consent? How about opening up a bunny-ranch trailer park?

Playing devil's advocate, aren't there a lot of things that occur that we would all prefer didn't? For example, on national forest land, there's nothing preventing another hunter from hunting the same spot you're at except for common courtesy. I understand there's a difference between public and private land. But whenever a property has multiple owners, I don't know if it's much different than public land that's only open to a very small group.

[Graysonhogs]

You're assuming to know what " a fair share" is. It's subjective to each person. The only way to know what's "a fair share" is to consult the others, and if there is a consensus reached , the original question is moot anyway.

[Lexington]

You're assuming to know what " a fair share" is. It's subjective to each person. The only way to know what's "a fair share" is to consult the others, and if there is a consensus is reached , the original question is moot anyway.

When I said fair share, I was referring to the percentage of the property that each owner has according to how large their interest is (i.e. 12.5%, 33.3%, etc.)

[RR 314]

Playing devil's advocate, aren't there a lot of things that occur that we would all prefer didn't? For example, on national forest land, there's nothing preventing another hunter from hunting the same spot you're at except for common courtesy. I understand there's a difference between public and private land. But whenever a property has multiple owners, I don't know if it's much different than public land that's only open to a very small group.

Keep advocating on behalf of the devil. I couldn't follow along. I must have been sick they day they taught law in law school. Good luck. Hope all works out for you and the other owners.

[Graysonhogs]

When I said fair share, I was referring to the percentage of the property that each owner has according to how large their interest is (i.e. 12.5%, 33.3%, etc.)

Yes but there must be a consensus as to the value of the plot as a whole before anything is split amongst the group. Who decides that?



I'll play devils advocate:



Uncle "x" has undivided interest in a property with four other people. Uncle X has cash flow issues, so he, unbeknownst to.the others, leases the land for a third of what its worth. He didn't say anything to anyone.else, but hey, the others got their cut.