Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

From the facts you state, there was no duress, as that requires her to have used improper pressure on you, when in fact you merely felt something had to be done quickly to help her. In California, however, agreements to transfer ownership, partial or full, must be in writing, or there must be acts by both parties showing that such a trnasfer did occur. I do not think that your side could argue that the transfer was null as you were the ones who did not prepare anything in writing so you would likely be estopped from making the argument, but a judge might read the law very conservatively and find that you are not barred from arguing the lack of a writtten agreement. On the other hand, a judge is going to feel much more sympathy toward her than the church group.

Talk to her and see if she is willing to accept a life estate in the proprety, which means while she is alive the property is treated as being her property except that she can not damage it or sell it and upon her death it automatically returns to the church. But you can not act as though nothing had been promised, as it was. Even if you can get out of the arrangement because of the lack of a written agreement, if she relied to her detriment on the promise she could sue for her damages. Such a suit would not be good for your reputation and might cause some controversy within your group.

[not proof read]

I agree with Mr. Shers that a negotiated settlement is far preferable to litigation, where the outcome is uncertain, and both parties would suffer rancor, expense, and varying degrees of unfavorable publicity.

There is an old but still respected California Supreme Court case, Monarco v. LoGreco, in which a young man was promised the family farm if he didn't move away and work in town. He spend many years working on and improving the family farm, but then his ungrateful relatives reneged on their promises, which weren't in writing. The court nonetheless awarded him the farm. The principle is called "promissory estoppel."

On the other hand, this isn't a true Monarco situation, as I see it. The legal issue would be whether the wife relied on receiving a 60% interest to her substantial detriment. A court's ruling would be fact-driven and rather a gamble for both sides.

The fact that there is no recorded deed and no written promise or agreement, and it is uncertain whether the wife gave any consideration, all are in the church's favor if there is litigation. The wife would have a difficult burden of proof.

Finally, I should perhaps mention that the law does provide a remedy for splitting up unhappy co-ownerships of property, including those where the degree of co-ownership, if any, is in dispute. This is a special kind of lawsuit called a "partition action," which asks the court to determine the respective interests of the parties and have the property sold and the proceeds distributed. This could be coupled with a quiet-title suit, if need be. One possible result of such a suit could be a voluntary, out-of-court settlement. Another could be that the parsonage would go on the market, where a 100% interest could be purchased (in competition with other offerors, if any, which may be unlikely) by the church or someone acting on its behalf.