Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Unfortunately, the only way to deal with this ongoing issue is to file an action for

partition. This action will result in one of two things: 1. Your brother and his wife

will learn to cooperate with you or 2. The court will sell the house and award you

most of the money from the sale based upon your brother's failure to pay taxes

and his use and possession.

I disagree with the previous answer. Filing a suit for partition is not the only way to deal with this problem (ouster).

You should look up and carefully read California Civil Code section 843, available on line or at the law library in your county. This section, particularly subsection 843(b), describes a simple and basic way to deal with ouster. You prepare and have served a written demand to be restored to concurrent possession. If you don't get concurrent possession within 60 days, you can then file a lawsuit for money damages, court-ordered concurrent possession, or partition.

Ejectment-based lawsuits won't work, because the co-owner is entitled to (co-) possession based on his co-ownership, and he is not subject to ejection.

It sounds as though you would prefer court-ordered possession, but maybe one of the other two alternatives would make more sense than forcing your way back into a hostile environment? One possibility you should consider is initiating a lawsuit for partition, and then using the time between initiation of suit and a final court-ordered sale to negotiate an out-of-court settlement with your brother and the bride. Partition lawsuits are a very effective way to force your co-owner to come to the bargaining table.

There is no form for "ouster." Ouster is a legal term to refer to the wrongful exclusion of an owner or coowner from his or her property. An action in ejectment is what an owner files to get someone out of the property who does not belong there, but it would not apply to a situation involving a coowner.