Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

The problem your father would have in trying to do something about it is that all co-owners of real estate, whether 99%, 50% or 1% owners, have an equal and coexisting right to occupy all of the property at any time.

This is a basic rule of the law relating to co-ownership of real estate. The rule, however, is subject to certain limitations. These include:

1, The co-owners have a right to alter their occupancy (possession) rights by contract. If your uncle surrendered his right to your father by making a contract to give up his rights of co-possession (but not co-ownership) in exchange for $X paid as a lump sum, or for $Y per year, his right of co-possession would go away.

2. The law distinguishes between a co-owner who is currently in possession of the property and one who is currently out of possession. If X is living peacefully at Whiteacre, then Y, his co-owner, cannot just come storming in at 3 a.m. Indeed, a co-owner out of possession is required to follow certain steps to (re)establish his right of co-possession. He must assert by written demand that he has been "ousted" from possession, and if that doesn't work, can go to court and sue for co-possession. See California Civil Code section 843.

There is another possibility. When one of two or more co-owners of real estate becomes unhappy with the co-ownership, the unhappy co-owner can file a special kind of lawsuit called a "partition action." A partition lawsuit asks the court to order the property to be sold (or subdivided between the owners, which is unusual these days) and the net proceeds of sale to be divided fairly between the former co-owners. In dividing the net proceeds among the former co-owners, the court is required to take into consideration excess payments one of the owners may have made in the past for necessary expenditures such as mortgage principal and interest, insurance, property taxes, and necessary maintenance.

So, maybe your father should consider just getting disinvolved with your uncle via a partition action. An additional factor to consider is that a high percentage of partition lawsuits get settled out of court before a final judgment. Maybe the uncle would concede and give up his ownership, which may now be pretty diluted due to not contributing to expenses.

Please feel free to contact me if you'd like more detailed assistance.