Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

There is a landmark California Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a long-time occupant who has been promised the property (even via an oral promise, not in writing) and who has worked to maintain and improve the propoerty over the years can enforce the promise even though it is not in writing and perhaps lacks other legal requirements of a contract of sale or a deed, That case was decided back in 1950. It is Monarco v. LoGreco, reported at 35 Cal.2nd 621. You should look up the case on line. In the intervening 62 years since Monarco was decided, other more recent decisions have further sharpened the principles, sometimes broadening the rules, but here and there tightening the requirements for "promissory estoppel" to trump the statute of frauds, which requires real estate deals to be in writing (sometimes).

Of course, to the extent the owner has put anything in writing, your case would be strengthened.

If it is a lender that is forcing the unfavorable-to-you eviction and sale, the Monarco rule probably isn't helpful, but you could probably work out a deal - and get it in writing - with the owner, whereby you get ownership in exchange for refinancing the loan in your name.

I should add that if you go on line you'll get plenty of hits for the search terms "Monarco LoGreco" but the most useful will be to read the entire case and then try to find several more recent cases that cite Monarco.