Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Joint tenancy is merely a way two or more people hold title to property. It is not a contract and does not (generally speaking) obligate the joint tenant to pay anything, or to demand to be paid anything. Here are a few more observations that might be helpful.

Either joint tenant can break the joint tenancy and turn it into a tenancy in common without the knowledge or permission of the other.

Joint tenancy carries with it the right of survivorship. When one joint tenant dies, the other joint tenant becomes the owner. Poof, instantaneous magic! No probate, and without regard to a will or trust.

Either joint tenant has the legal right to occupy the entire property. There is one practical limitation on this. A joint tenant currently out of possession cannot retake possession against the joint tenant currently in possession when doing so might involve a breach of the peace; a lawsuit and court order are the preferred route to re-establish joint possession.

Because the joint tenants are both entitled to possession, neither of them can charge the other rent.

If one joint tenant obtains rent or other income from the property (such as selling apples from its orchard), the net profits must be shared.

Under some circumstances, a court can order one joint tenant to reimburse the other for paying more than a fair share of certain necessary expenses, such as principal and interest, insurance, property taxes and necessary maintenance. Expenditures that primarily benefit only one of the joint tenants, such as redecorating, or that are not agreed upon, such as building an addition, are not usually subject to reimbursement orders.

When co-owners (whether joint tenants or tenants in common) are unhappy with the arrangement and one wants to get out, but the other doesn't want to sell and/or doesn't want to or cannot buy out the other, the remedy is a special kind of lawsuit called a partition action. In the old days, real property often could be physically subdivided by court order, but with urbanization and zoning and subdivision laws, that seldom is practical, so now partition is usually by court-ordered sale and division of the net proceeds.

Reimbursement orders are common when the property is sold pursuant to court order as part of a partition lawsuit.

Partition of recently-acquired property is difficult because there is likely no net equity and a sale will not produce enough cash to pay the mortgage, the sales commission, the lawyers and the other costs of the suit and the sale.

So, I'd say the answer is NO, he can't charge you his expenses, but on the other hand you can't charge him rent for being the sole occupant of the house you co-own.

People CAN do anything thing they want, just look at freeway speeds. Whether you can do anything about it and protect your rights depends upon all the facts, and whether you're willing to take action to do so.