Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: mother-in-law changes agreement

even if you do not have formal written contract in place, you may be able to prove the existence of your oral agreement if you have anything in writing or some kind of evidence showing there were was an oral agreement in place. if you can prove the agreement was in place, you may be able to enforce the oral contract to some extent and show a breach or unjust enrichment by your mother in law. email me as much information that could prove the existence of the oral contract and i may be able to further assist you.

Re: mother-in-law changes agreement

Well, this is an unusual twist on a common theme, dispute between co-owners of property as to who owns what based on who is 'on title' versus who made the down payment, who made the loan payments, sweat equity, repairs, rent, taxes, oral and written side agreements, etc.

There are a lot of these problems around, no two exactly alike.

The first question is, how does ownership appear on the record at the courthouse? If your mother-in-law is shown as sole owner, your case is weak.

Second question: who made the down payment? If your mother-in-law made 100% of the down payment, your case is even weaker. From the facts you give, sounds like she put up the land purchase and/or construction money.

Next: who was obliged to make the loan payments to the lender? That is, who signed the promissory note for the original and for the refi loan? (I'm not asking whether the obligation to pay was passed through to you, but rather who did the mortgage man look to for payment?) Again, if it was your mother-in-law, you're on thin ice.

Finally, was there any written agreement between you?

If you aren't on title, didn't contribute to the down payment, weren't the primary credit on the mortgage, I think you are only a tenant and must pay rent to the owner, your mother-in-law.

This outcome would be different if there were a written agreement between you expressing a different intent. Finally, if the result is grossly unfair, you might get some protection from a court under theories of 'promissory estoppel' or 'equitable estoppel,' but the facts don't seem to support a belief that you're getting a bad deal through broken promises (I could be wrong, however)....you might want to look up and read the California Supreme Court case of Monarco versus LoGreco for an example of relief based on estoppel under an oral contract to convey real estate, which is normally unenforceable.