Can real estate property with shared ownership be forcibly sold by one of the owners

[NukkuMatti]

Difficult legal question:

Situation 1 : 5 owners own a summer cottage with land.
1 owner (lets call this A) owns 1/4 and the other 4 owners (B, C, D, and E) own the other 3/4. (so 3/16 each).

Now is there any possibility that due to financial troubles of person A or just as an act of sabotage of person A, the sale of the whole property can be forced without the permission of B, C, D and E or while persons B, C, D and E refuse to sell?

Situation 2: What if A owns 1/2, and the others (B, C, D, E) own together the other 1/2 (so 1/8 each)?

I would assume that person A could sell it's share only.... so in first scenario 1/4 share and in second 1/2 share, and the other owners (BCDE) keep their ownership. Is that correct?

How does a shared ownership work with the "right of the use of the real estate property" (summer cottage).

How does a shared ownership like situation 1, work when the real estate in question it is not a summer cottage, but (lets call it) situation 3: a residence where BCDE are living as their main residence / place of domicile.

Anyone any Idea?

[betelgeuse]

Difficult legal question:

Situation 1 : 5 owners own a summer cottage with land.
1 owner (lets call this A) owns 1/4 and the other 4 owners (B, C, D, and E) own the other 3/4. (so 3/16 each).

Now is there any possibility that due to financial troubles of person A or just as an act of sabotage of person A, the sale of the whole property can be forced without the permission of B, C, D and E or while persons B, C, D and E refuse to sell?

It's not really difficult. There's a law that deals with the situation.

https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1958/19580180

The answer is yes.

Situation 2: What if A owns 1/2, and the others (B, C, D, E) own together the other 1/2 (so 1/8 each)?

I would assume that person A could sell it's share only.... so in first scenario 1/4 share and in second 1/2 share, and the other owners (BCDE) keep their ownership. Is that correct?

No.

How does a shared ownership work with the "right of the use of the real estate property" (summer cottage).

Do you refer to hallintaoikeus and omistusoikeus? They are separate rights.

How does a shared ownership like situation 1, work when the real estate in question it is not a summer cottage, but (lets call it) situation 3: a residence where BCDE are living as their main residence / place of domicile.

Presumably A isn't married to any of BCDE so nothing changes.

[NukkuMatti]

The answer is yes.

And no A (57 yrs) is not married to BSDE who are all under age. (<18)

Ok... that is unfortunate regarding the summer cottage, now the situation is a little different regarding the residence:

The residence property is actually shares in a housing company previously owned by the deceased (grant) parents.

The housing company is a company with 2 units, both the estates of the deceased own together 1/2 of the company (other half by the neighbour) and both estates own half of that half.
This is how the apartment (1/2 of the building) might turn up for 3/4 in the hands of BCDE and 1/4 of A (A got disinherited by one parent, fought this in court and lost, appealed and BCDE made a settlement with A that she would receive her legal share in money).

The estate(s) now rent out the dwelling to the father of BCDE with a notice time in the contract for undefined/continuous time, of 1 year (legal minimum = 6 months), with in the contract the stipulation that notice can only be given by all shareholders unanimously. The contract was deemed valid by Vantaa oikeusaputoimisto Lawyers.

So... basically this is not really about the real estate sale but actually about sale of the shares of the company anyway.

Is it possible to just sell the share of A without selling the shares of BCDE in the housing company. The housing company is not making a profit, therefore the sale of just 1/4 of 1/2 (other 1/2 is the neighbours) will not render much profit of course, Also the majority of the shareholders of the unit can set (renegotiate) the rental price or the rental contract with the father of BCDE.

The estates have not been distributed yet and a distributor is appointed (who should take the best interest of BCDE minors in account when making a decision).

Also in case of a voluntary sale, the rental contract stays valid, correct?

It is clear that BCDE want to stay in their current home...

So what am I missing here.... ?

[FinlandGirl]

Is it possible to just sell the share of A without selling the shares of BCDE in the housing company. The housing company is not making a profit, therefore the sale of just 1/4 of 1/2 (other 1/2 is the neighbours) will not render much profit of course

Owning 1/8 of the housing company means owning 1/8 of the house (or 1/4 of the dwelling), and the value is accordingly.
The law ensures that A can sell this for a fair price, and that your attempt to make As shares basically worthless will not work.
I assume the dwelling is not divisible, so in practice either BCDE will buy the share from A at that price or the dwelling as a whole has to be sold.

The estate(s) now rent out the dwelling to the father of BCDE with a notice time in the contract for undefined/continuous time, of 1 year (legal minimum = 6 months), with in the contract the stipulation that notice can only be given by all shareholders unanimously.
...
Also in case of a voluntary sale, the rental contract stays valid, correct?

A can force the sale of the of the whole dwelling, with the money from the sale distributed among the current owners according to their shares.
Chances are the new owner will immediately unanimously decide to give notice to the current tenant.
Usually BCDE (and A) will get much less money from the sale of the dwelling if it is still occupied by a tenant for another year.

It is clear that BCDE want to stay in their current home...

The money BCDE get from their share if the summer cottage is sold might help with buying the share of A in the dwelling where BCDE are living, this would be a fair solution to maintain both the legitimate interest of BCDE to continue living in the dwelling and the legitimate interest of A to get the sum of 1/4 of the values of the summer cottage and the dwelling in money.

A mortgage on the dwelling might be an option for BCDE for keeping both the dwelling and the summer cottage by buying the 25% ownership on both from A.

The contract was deemed valid by Vantaa oikeusaputoimisto Lawyers.

You already know where to get reliable legal aid, why are you asking random people on the internet instead?

[NukkuMatti]

You already know where to get reliable legal aid, why are you asking random people on the internet instead?

Yes I know indeed, but the current time it will take before I get an answer from the oikeusaputoimisto is way longer than from you guys/girls here and I am on a tight schedule... decisions need to be made regarding distribution..

Thanks for confirming my thoughts / fears on this subject, the appropriate action is clear: Sell the summer cottage if needed, but in no way accept a solution where A stays part owner of anything.

Happy new year!!