Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: 4 owners of 30 acres

In order to answer, I have to assume a fact not given; namely, that your brother-in-law is one of the four owners. If so, and absent some very unusual way of holding title and/or a written agreement to the contrary, your brother-in-law has a right to use any and all of the property in any legal manner. Theoretically at least, he could store car parts, trucks and tractors on all 30 acres, although the other owners would probably have a remedy in such a case.

The legal principle is that co-owners (by joint tenancy or tenancy in common) have an "undivided interest" in the entire parcel and thus an equal right to occupy any and all parts of the land simultaneously with every other owner. Denying a co-owner his or her right of co-possession is termed an "ouster," and an ouster can be remedied in a civil action. See Civil Code section 843 re ousters and remedies in general.

The extent of denial of shared use that amounts to an ouster is not well defined and can be the subject of litigation. Exclusively using all 30 acres would be an ouster for sure, after demand for shared possession and refusal; use of 3 acres, perhaps not. There is no formula and whether an ouster occurs has more to do with the manner and degree of exclusion rather than the acreage in question.

In this case, it is also arguable that storing "junk" is a violation of a co-owner's shared duty to maintain the property, and that when it is sold, his share of the proceeds could be reduced by the effect it had on the valuation of the property. This too would probably require a civil suit to obtain a judgment to that effect.

Finally, "self help" by having the stuff taken off the property would be improper; at least a trespass to the property and possibly a conversion thereof.

If the overall impact of the junk on the value of the property warrants, you could consider a suit based on the above principles, but a negotiated resolution of this family matter would be preferable, particularly if the amount of loss of value is not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Re: 4 owners of 30 acres

I am assuming that the cars and junk were there with your prior knowledge and consent. Assuming from this point on you have warned him of your intent to remove his property, and he resists. He is both trespassing and causing a nuisance. Both of which are actionable under California law. If you are serious call me for further discussions. My tel and address is in my profile section.

Goodluck