Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Well you either get him to agree, or you file a specialized action called a "partition" case. In the olden days when joint owners of property couldn't cooperate, the courts literally partitioned the property creating new parcels. Under modern parcel map acts, zoning laws, etc., that is no longer possible, so the courts conduct what amounts to a combination foreclosure sale and partnership dissolution. The property is sold at a sheriff's auction and then the owners litigate over their share of the proceeds.

Considering that sheriffs' sales draw a fraction of the market value of properties, the filing of a partition action almost always results in either an agreed buy-out by one owner, or a joint agreement to sell the property for market value and then they litigate or settle over who gets how much of the proceeds.

I have handled a number of these cases in my 27 year career and would be happy to discuss how I might be of further assistance.

I will describe two legal principles that, if used together, could produce a very favorable result.

The first is that you probably can successfully claim 95% (more or less) of the ownership, based upon your 95% down-payment and a legal principle called "purchase-money resulting trust," where title can be shown equitably owned in proportion to where the purchase money came from, irrespective of how recorded title shows (tenants in common, joint tenants, etc.) down at the courthouse, including the percentage ownership shown on the record. A purchase-money resulting trust cannot be established against evidence that one party intended to make a gift of some of the ownership, but such a situation (a gift) usually is only found where the parties are parent and child or husband and wife, not brother and sister.

So, a lawsuit to quiet title, i.e., to have you awarded 95% ownership, would be part one of the proposed legal action. Part two would be a so-called "partition action," which is a highly specialized form of lawsuit used to divide ownership between unhappy co-owners of property. Originally, the court would divide the physical parcel (generally, a farm or ranch) between the squabbling heirs, hence the name "partition" -- but by the mid-20th Century, we were urbanized and had laws and policies restricting subdivision of parcels, so more and more the result of a "partition action" is a court-ordered sale of the co-owned property, then a court-ordered division of the net proceeds of sale (after paying taxes, loans and liens, and the costs of sale). The distribution of the net proceeds is done with due judicial consideration of not only percentage ownership, but also excess expenditures that one former owner may have made for mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, and necessary repairs. Cost of improvements to the property might also be figured into the final accounting (if all co-owners had agreed upon and/or benefitted from them), as well as rental profits made and not shared.

I note that your Zip code isn't too far from my office-at-home; actually, I do cases all over California. Also, I have made a mini-specialty of situations just like yours (resulting trusts and partition). I could handle this for you economically and expertly, and I invite you to contact me with details and further questions.

This calls for what is considered a "partition" of the property. You might even consider what is called a "quiet title" action.

Talk to the guy first and see if you can get him to agree to get of the deed by working something out (like buying him out).

By filing suit for a 'Partition' and 'Accounting' action if you two can't resolve it yourselves.

I'm willing to bet a dollar that you didn't bother to put any of this 'agreement' in writing either. If you had, you could then prove what the terms of the 'deal' were when he says 'nah uh'.