4 children inherit their mother's half of the house she owned with her 2nd husband. The husband wants to charge the children rent. Can he?

Every owner should pay a percentage of the mortgage (if any), property taxes, major repairs (like a new roof), and insurance if proportion to their share of ownership. Why? Because they all have a stake in the house and property.

However, the person living in the house needs to fund utilities and basic maintenance. These are things where that specific person is the only one receiving benefit.

The person living in the house should also pay rent to the other owners. Again, in proportion to ownership. [Update: This part depends on exactly how the house is held.]

If this is not acceptable to the non-resident owners, they can sue for partition. This means that the house must be sold (either to the resident owner or to someone else) and the proceeds distributed to the owners.

Now, typically, when people are married, they hold title such that the survivor gets 100%. In this case, it appears that there was a decision by the spouses not to hold the house this way, presumably so that mom could leave half of the house to her children.

Jay's answer is perfect.

This man has it backwards. The owners don't pay the person who's living there. The person who's living there is usually called a renter and he pays the people who own the property.

What you need to do is set up some kind of fund, I'm not sure what the term is. You'll want a lawyer to set it up. Think of it as a corporation. The corporation owns the land, each person owns a part of the corporation, and the renter pays the corporation. If the rent doesn't cover expenses, then the owners of the corporation would have to put in money. But of course, if there's money left after expenses are paid, then the owners get the profit. Hopefully it works out to be a profit.

You don't actually set it up as a corporation, there's a more legal term for it.

So sense the renter also owns half, he would get back half the rent minus the expenses.

I strongly suggest that a lawyer draws up the agreement. If you don't get a lawyer now then you'll end up arguing about it and getting lawyers involved latter.

And I really think it'll work better if you separate owning the property and renting the property. It just makes everything cleaner.

Also, because he's both the renter and an owner, he can be the one who keeps up the property. The owners would then pay him for keeping up the property. I know the math gets a little much there, so you could probably simplify it by saying that he gets a reduction in rent for doing the maintenance.

If the deceased and spouse owned the home as joint-tenants rather than as tenants in common, the house passes automatically to the spouse. That is the nature of a joint-tenancy - the right of survivorship. No severance. Spouse then makes a will leaving the house to whoever he likes. If no will, estate administration statute provides for its devise. Next in line would be HIS offspring, not those of deceased wife. That's how joint tenancy operates. No obligation on the part of deceased's offspring to pay anything as they may not inherit. They have reasonable expectation to do so if joint tenant survivor owner has offspring of his own.

First, none of what you're talking about in the body of your question is "rent." Those charges are maintenance and upkeep.

Second, all the other points on a co-tenant charging rent are correct. As far as I know, no jurisdictions allow charging rent to co-tenants not in possession. On the other hand, some jurisdictions (a minority) allow tenants out of possession to charge the tenant in possession rent. Check your local laws.

Third, as for upkeep, the general rule is that there is no duty to pay for repairs or improvements made by the tenant(s) in possession. As for taxes and fees, the opposite is true, non-possessory tenants have an affirmative duty to pay their pro-rata share and can be forced to make "contribution." As may be applicable to your case, there is an exception when the tenant in possession is in sole possession and the value of the taxes/fees isn't more than the worth of the property. Also bear in mind, when it comes time to partition the property, the tenant in possession (and his estate) will get a credit for all of those repairs, improvements, and expenditures he made to/for the property. So, you'll have to pay your share of those costs sooner or later - either now or when you sell (partition) the house.

Fourth, again, local laws vary, check your state's property law.

I've provided you a link to a property law outline because you've been asking so many questions lately, feel free to peruse.

-All the best

Maybe. Your best bet would be to insist the man either pay you the value of half of the house or insist it be sold and the proceeds split.

I co-own a vacation home and we split the property taxes and maintenance. But if he lives there then he alone is responsible for the utilities.

No. Tenants in common have an undivided right to 100% of the property. No tenant in common can impose rent, and no tenant can sue for value unless there has been an ouster.

Easy solution would be for the widow to buy out the other children and be done with it.

No.