Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: home ownership eviction/sale

Verbal agreement is most likely meaningless. You cannot evict her because she is not a tenant - she has ownership interest.

You will need a written agreement between yourself and your ex, to establish the terms of your arrangment.

Absent that, you may be able to sue on the oral agreement; but I would need to know additional facts before I could determine whether that would be viable.

In situations like this, the typical result is that one co-owner sues the other to force a sale of the property. This is known as a partition lawsuit. The court will order the property sold, the proceeds placed into trust, and distribute according to your interests (with adjustments made for credit or debit, according to proof submitted to court).

Re: home ownership eviction/sale

You didn't mention how title is held; that is a key fact here, and I will assume that you are both on title as equal co-owners, probably as tenants in common, although at this point the analysis is virtually the same if you are joint tenants.

There are at least two legal issues here. The first is equitable or beneficial ownership of the house, which may not be the same as is shown on legal title "of record" at the county recorder's office. The second obvious issue would be, once title is resolved, the rights of the parties to reimbursement.

Without getting too technical, first I should warn you that there is a principle holding that when X and Y are both on title, but X put up all the purchase money (deposit, down payment and cash closing costs), Y's presence on title is probably a legal accident unless a different conclusion can be shown from a contract between them or factors suggesting that Y's share of title was a gift from X. Y is deemed to hold his 1/2 of title as the trustee of an involuntary trust of which X is the beneficiary, and Y must sign over his 1/2 interest on X's demand. This is called a purchase-money resulting trust, and your girlfriend's lawyer might assert such a theory. Your defense to the theory would be the oral contract, but it is not a winner against a sharp and aggressive lawyer. Your best hope is that she doesn't come up with this theory.

So, if she doesn't manage to strip you of your record 1/2 interest in a quiet-title action based on resulting trust, we move to the partition suit scenario, where you are equal owners and the court is asked to supervise the sale of the house and to divide the net proceeds fairly.

At this stage, you will each present your evidence - she as to the down payment, you as to the mortgage and bills. The court, or its appointed referee, will weigh your evidence (receipts, canceled checks, oral testimony, etc.) and debit and credit your "accounts" for reimbursable items. The referee should consider payments for the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, and necessary repairs. The referee should not credit a party for expenditures for home improvements unless of a permanent nature and agreed upon in advance by both of you, nor for utility bills, furnishings, groceries, or other living expenses. Certain legal expenses for the joint benefit can also be reckoned in. All of these proper debits and credits will be used to adjust the net proceeds of sale after paying off liens and expenses of sale.

It would be better for you to work out a written settlement based on your original oral agreement, even if you have to make some concessions, because if the place has gone up in value over 10 years, you could be the big loser if you have to give up 50% of the equity should she assert and prevail on a resulting trust theory in a quiet-title suit preceding or combined with a partition action.