Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

You're right. The person selling their interest doesn't provide the money. I suggest you consult with a competent real estate attorney as soon as possible. These things often turn into partitions by sale. I don't see any family law issues per se, unless you and your boyfriend entered into what is known as a "Marvin" agreement. I suggest getting copies of all relevant paperwork, including the loan paperwork, the deeds, and the deed of trust to take with you when you consult with the attorney.

Mr. Roach's blanket statement that the person getting the property doesn't provide the money is wrong. There are two circumstances in which the person getting the property may receive money, rather than pay it. The first is if the property is underwater and the person taking the property is taking on debt instead of equity. The second is if the person taking the property has put in reimbursable funds that exceed the other person's equity stake. Neither situation is very common, but they do happen, more so now with the crash of property values. I see you are in the Hayward area. I have my primary office in Walnut Creek and a satellite office in Oakland. I would be happy to provide you with a consultation in either location as Mr. Roach suggests, and sort your particular situation out for you.

If you bought the house 50+ years ago, it has certainly appreciated well beyond the 1962 purchase price! The house is worth much more than was paid for it back then, notwithstanding that it may be worth less today than in July, 2006. Having said that, some, most or all of the "profit" may have been taken out in one or both of the refinancings.

In order to determine what's "fair" here in the way of disposing of the property by him buying you out, by a court-ordered partition, or in any other way, we would need substantial additional information, including:

1. How is title held?

2. Which of you put up the down-payment funds back in 1962?

3. Which of you has contributed to the expenses over the years? (i.e., who has paid the property taxes, mortgage payments, insurance and maintenance).

4. When the property was refinanced, did anyone take out any cash?

5. Who was and is "on the loan" as the responsible borrower?

6. Who wants to end up owning the property (if either)?

These and probably other questions may or will bear heavily on who should pay whom, and which of you is entitled to any profit or equity in the event of a sale.

I suggest taking Mr. McCormick up on his offer, and/or I can provide a free consultation in person or carry on some further discussions with you based on receiving your answers to the six questions listed above.

Don't you love all these attorneys that can't read? Mr. Whipple thinks you've owned the house for 50 years, rather than 5. Mr. McCormick thinks you have to pay your boyfriend to have him buy out your interest. If you feel comfortable with attorneys telling you such nonsense, go on ahead.

'