Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Yes, in addition to letting the property go into foreclosure, there are at least two other alternatives. Neither one is necessarily going to be a good solution, unfortunately.

First, you are cotenants of some kind; whether your title says "community property" or not, it cannot be community property. The default is "tenants in common," but you might also have taken title as joint tenants even if you were masquerading as husband and wife. You might want to look at your documents and see how you hold title.

One thing you could do is go to court to enforce your right to co-possession. All persons who share ownership as tenants in common or joint tenants are entitled to co-possession of the entire co-owned property. This is probably unpalatable, because you probably want as little to do with him as possible, but you should know that one co-owner cannot lawfully bar the other from full rights of entry and use; if one does, it's called an "ouster" and can be addressed by complaint to the court; see also Civil Code section 853 regarding issuing a demand for restoration of co-possession.

The other main remedy available to a co-owner who is unhappy with the co-ownership is a special kind of lawsuit called a "partition." The court is asked to order the property sold and the net proceeds divided according to evidence as to what split is fairest, all considered. The problem with partition is it only produces a good financial result with properties where the co-owners have a decent amount of equity. Otherwise, the proceeds of sale won't cover costs, commissions, paying off the loan(s), plus both parties' legal bills.

A few other possibilities may exist. Theoretically, you could sue him to enforce his oral or implied promise to share expenses (a la Marvin v. Marvin, the famous "palimony" case), or you could try to renegotiate the loan (that's a long shot without his participation).

Finally, I should advise you of an equitable principle called "purchase-money resulting trust" which holds that when X and Y appear on title together, or Y holds title alone, but X's contribution to the purchase money (down payment) was larger than the share of title he or she holds, then Y is presumed to hold the excess ownership in trust for X, and can be made to deed it over to X. An example is John D. Rockefeller hears there is oil in Oklahoma, so he hands his faithful clerk Bob Cratchit a bag of gold and puts him on the train to Tulsa to buy every broken-down ranch in site. Cratchit comes back to New York a month later with a valise full of deeds to ranches, all showing "Cratchit and Rockefeller" as the new owners. Rockefeller's money was used, so the court declares Cratchit a mere trustee and orders him to sign the ranches over to John D. In your case, if you put up a disproportionate share of the down payment, and did not do so for the purpose of making a gift to your "husband," you can probably claim a larger share (if it's worth it).

Sue for partition. Contact me directly.