Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Joint Tenancy issues

I suggest that you file a lawsuit against him for partition and put a lis pendens on the property. that will freeze ownership of the property until your interest can be determined. We would need to review any prior correspondence that you may have along with any documenation.

Re: Joint Tenancy issues

I would need to see the most recent deed (as well as ask several other questions) to give you a proper response. I can have the deed pulled or you can send a copy of you have it. Generally speaking, the transaction whereby you two initially acquired title should not determine the ownership apportionment today. That's a generalization and there are dozens of reasons why it might not apply. Email me to discuss.

-Ben

[email protected]

Re: Joint Tenancy issues

I can give you a more direct answer, I think. There is no such thing as an 80-20 joint tenancy.

All two-party joint tenancies are 50-50, all three-party joint tenancies are exactly 1/3-1/3-1/3, and so on, by definition.

Now, there are two or three cautions I need to express: First, maybe you are using the term "joint tenants" too loosely. Cotenants can be tenants in common as well as joint tenants. Tenancies in common can be any percentage split; 50-50, 99-1, or anything else. If a deed doesn't specify "joint tenants," it will be assumed that the co-owners take title as tenants in common. Next, legal or "record" title as shown on the public record doesn't always comport exactly with so-called equitable title or beneficial ownership. This means that in some rather rare circumstances a court could be persuaded to overrule the recorded deed because of a mistake, fraud, or the like. There is, for example, a so-called "purchase-money resulting trust" in which someone whose name goes on title when someone else's money was used for the down-payment may be considered to hold title as an involuntary trustee for the person whose money was used. I presume this is not the case here, although your question is silent about whose cash was used for the down payment.

The refinancings themselves have little or nothing to do, directly, with ownership, but if you partitioned ownership or sold voluntarily, it would become a vaild inquiry as to who has over-benefitted from the proceeds or who has overpaid on various payments.

Next important point. Joint tenancies are frail, and even if one originally existed, it would have been destroyed by the quitclaim-and-grant-back process you describe. A new joint tenancy could have been created by careful drafting of the final deed in the chain, but the most important point is that whatever that last deed says is going to be 100% controlling! (This assumes that the quitclaim was regular in every way and duly recorded, as it probably was in order to meet the lender's reqirements, and that there is no equitable-title claim such as a resulting trust or mistake waiting in the wings.)

So, the bottom line is that whatever the most recent deed says about ownership will 99% likely be controlling. If it gives him a half interest, that's what he's got. If it is silent as to his interest, a half interest will be presumed. If it creates a two-person joint tenancy, it's also 50-50.

I will also offer to give you a free further analysis of what the deed or deeds do if you send me copies. Also, keep me in mind if you need an attorney to handle a partition action to get you out of this co-ownership situation that sounds like rough seas now and headed for the shoals later on.