Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

First, it's not entirely clear whether the land was inherited "with orchard," whether the orchard was planted after the inheritance, or whether the "trees" mentioned are different from the orchard. Perhaps two prospective heirs planted the orchard before inheriting the land.

Also, when you say the land was "deeded over," I assume you mean "title taken" (as tenants in common), since deeds and inheritance are separate and distinct ways of changing ownership of land.

Finally, you mention both a family trust and a lease. However, you don't mention whether the trust is still in effect, whether the land with orchard is somehow subject to the trust even though now owned by three heirs, nor by whom and to whom some interest or right in the land is leased.

So, the whole thing is pretty confusing. Nevertheless, here are a few general principles that might be helpful to you in starting to figure this out:

1. Land owned by tenants in common is all owned by all of them.....there is no concept of "my ten acres and your ten acres," nor "my room." The co-owners may agree to let Joe use this part, Sam this other part, etc., but as far as ownership and the fundamental right of possession, there are no boundaries. Every co-owner is entitled to possess and use every square inch, subject only to any contracts between them and a requirement that none makes a forcible attempt to dispossess or oust any other's current use or possession. Enforcement of the right of shared possession requires a court order, in the interest of preventing breaches of the peace.

2. Trees are part of the real property (Civil Code section 658). They are not land (Civil Code 659), they are fixtures (Civil Code 660).

3. When trees are planted on real property, they become part of the real property and are owned, from the moment of their planting, by the same people and in the same proportion as own the land.

4. Leasing real property doesn't prevent its sale. Otherwise, how would a shopping center or large apartment building ever change hands? Fully-tenanted property is more desirable than vacant property. All that happens when leased property sells is that the tenant gets a new landlord.

5. One (or two) of three co-owners cannot sell the property, but he/they can sell his/their part interest(s). This happens rarely, because most buyers don't want to share ownership and possession with strangers. But it can and does happen.

6. One (or two) of three co-owners can lease their right of shared possession to a stranger, but the stranger will not thereby acquire any greater rights than the lessors had; specifically, the non-leasing co-owner(s) will be, in effect, "roommates" of the lessee(s), with full right to occupy, possess and use every square inch of the property under the concept discussed in #1, above.

7. With very limited exceptions, any co-owner may at any time apply to the court for partition of the property, which when granted will end the tenancy in common and cause the court to divide (partition) the land in three, one smaller parcel for each former co-owner. If the process of ending the co-ownership cannot be done fairly or legally by a subdivision, the court will order the property sold, the liens and costs paid, and the left-over net proceeds divided fairly.

8. A fair division of the proceeds of sale, or a fair allocation of acreage and buildings in a partition by physical division, may include adjustments, as the court finds fair, for outlays in excess of a fair share made by a co-owner for necessary costs such as mortgage payments, insurance, property taxes, essential repairs, and so forth, made during the period of co-ownership. Outlays by one co-owner for improvements (such as planting orchard trees) might also result in a re-allocation of parcel boundaries or adjustment of dollar share of sale proceeds, but generally only if everyone agreed to the improvement and/or to the extent the improvement is shown to have enhanced the property value.

9. A co-owner in possession is not required to pay rent to the other co-owners for his own use of the land, even if he uses all of it, because each and every co-owner has a right to the land. Nevertheless, if one or more co-owners agree by contract to give up their rights for rent, they are entitled to collect it. If a co-owner in possession rents to a third party, the net profit from the rental must be shared with the other co-owners, and in a partition, the co-owner(s) who have been in possession must account for and share with the co-owner(s) not in possession any profits from rentals to third parties.

Please feel free to contact me directly for further (no obligation) discussion of this situation.