If he allowed the house to become run down during his time of possession when he refused to sell, then you have a good argument that he is not entitled to recover 1/2 of the money used for repairs and you would argue that had he kept the house up from the beginning he would not have incurred those costs now. As far as selling at the low price, you can seek an order from the court prohibiting the sale for that low price or forcing him to make up the difference to the market value for your share. Unfortunately, because of the depressed economic market right now, you will have to show that you had the ability to sell at the higher price and he refused to do so prior to this, thus causing you a loss. Also, if the price he is seeking to sell at is unreasonable, then you would also argue this also.
I hope you found my answer helpful, please click on the GREEN ACCEPT for my answer. This is necessary for me to be paid for my work and so that I can get credit for assisting you. Your question will not close, and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving a bonus and positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated!
If you have additional questions, please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.
Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.
There can also be a delay of an hour or more in between my answers because I may be helping other customers or taking a break.