Hy husband and his brother share ownership of a summer cottage. Ten
years ago, the brother built an second cottage on the same piece of
property. At that time,we began improvements to the older cottage
(windows, painting, plumbing, decorating)the brother did not
contribute to the cost of repairs/upgrades/utilities nor has he slept
there. They share the cost of property taxes and road maintenence
costs. Does he still own half of the original building? Ownership of
the ground/land is not in dispute, just the cottage. Thanks

You do not gain ownership over a shared cottage simply by making
improvements on it or sleeping in it.  His building a separate cottage
on the shared land is a separate issue.  Just like if I rent an
apartment or get a room in a hotel, I do not own the room if I choose
to make improvements to it.

I am no expert, but I've read a lot of deeds.  If the title to the
land specifies that it covers any dwellings on the land, then whoever
is named on the title also owns the land and any buildings on it.  If
the taxes and property maintenance are being paid by both men, then I
assume that both men acknowlegde that the land is owned jointly.

I sense that there are some sort of ill feelings on your part over
some aspect of this joint ownership.  Legally, both brothers own equal
parts of each cottage.  Practically, I am going to guess that one
brother considers one cottage to be his and the other cottage to
belong to the other.  That can work until one brother (or his family)
decides that there is an inequity or feels that the status quo is not
being respected.

This then becomes a matter for a family therapist, and not a legal question.

Hi, thanks for your info. The are ill feelings over the original
cottage. I (we) have spent considerable money on maintanence and
upgrades with no help   ($$$ or labor) from the brother. We keep the
original cottage in top shape and he doesn't do any upkeep or
maintanence on the cottage he built. Now it appears that he wishes to
start lending the original cottage to his friends. If this is OK
because he "owns" half, I would like to get half of my money spent on
utilities and upgrades back. And I will remove my valuable antiques
and art from the dwelling. Thanks BG

Unless you had an agreement prior to improvements being done, the
brother does not legally owe you anything.  You might have a case,
albeit possibly a weak one, if the work you paid for was necessary to
maintain the structural or legal integrity of the building (like
fixing a gushing pipe, or bringing dangerous electrical wiring up to
code) and the work was needed and there was no reasonable way to
communicate with the brother.  Otherwise, I believe you can chalk up
your "investment" to a life lesson.  Perhaps if you ever sell the
property, you could recoup some of your costs from the proceeds of the
sale.

Just to point out the couterargument, if the brother asserts his legal
rights to half the original cottage, you can assert your legal right
to his newer cottage.  You own half of that building the same way he
owns half of "your" building.

Barbie,
If you will tell us in which country this is, a Researcher with legal
experience may give a more professional answer or commment.
As you know  - see disclaimer -  nothing here is professional or legal advice.

In some countries, it may be possible to own a building on land owned
by someone else or in common with someone else.  This was so in the
German Democratic Republic, but it does not exist any more, 
Furthermore, there would have to be a deed describing this.
In most countries, land and buildings cannot be owned separately, and
Philnj-ga would be correct, that the brother who has built a second
cottage has a greater problem, having enhanced the total property
which is jointly owned,  OR in the other case, having built it without
securing a deed for his individual ownership of the new cottage.

SO  -  your husband needs a lawyer/solicitor, but it seems that he has
some leverage to force his brother to come to an agreement.

It may be possible to deed USE of the cottages to each and their descendents,
BUT it seems an opportune time for them to agree to change their joint
ownership of the property to individual ownership of each half, which
hopefully could be amicably settled.  Jointly owned and used porperty
is a situation just waiting for a dispute.

I would talk to a lawyer and pick the solution that seems best, get a
deed drafted, and then present it as a suggestion to the brother, or
have the lawyer talk to him, to keep it from being a face-to-face
family confrontation.

In some countries, lawyers' fees are based on the value of the
property, but this can be negotiable if the lawyer agrees that the
value is that pertaining to your husband's future half and the old
cottage.

Get a lawyer, and good luck, Myoarin

Hi,Thanks to all for the info/points of view. This property is in Nova
Scotia Canada. It was purchased in 1969...for $300.00!!!  The parents
of the brothers are still alive but don't seem able to influence their
oldest child. BG

Hi again, Barbie,
Nova Scotia, lovely place  - and girls (had a NS girlfirend once :)

Here is a site that explains that ownership of land includes all
permanent structures , i.e., buildings.

http://www.canadianlawsite.com/realestateNS.html

I should have realized before that "strata" or "condominium" ownership
could be an alternative.  This does not apply to just apartment
buildings, but could  - I think -  be a way to give each brother
ownership of one cottage and define each's use of the jointly owned
land.

I think that is a messy solution, technically and for the future,
since an eventual purchaser may not like the situation.  Practically,
this would end up with a definition of who had rights to which part of
the land, effectively defining a border.  Then it would be just as
well  - better -  to go ahead and split the property into two parcels.
Or !!!  they could consider splitting into more then two parcels if
this is feasable and of interest.  It is never too soon to think about
this, since zoning laws about subdividing property often preclude
further subdivision but respect existing smaller parcels.
They could continue to own these jointly  - if some lots would
obviously be worth more than others -  or they could agree who got
what.
But enough speculation from here,
Good luck, Myoarin