Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: who owns the house

This is what happens when people try to do things when they don't know what they are doing. B would probably lose to C, since B failed to record the quit claim deed. If B could prove that C knew of the quit claim to B at the time he made the deal, then B might be successful against C.

Both B and C could have a cause of action against A for transferring ownership to 2 people. The fact that B didn't pay the homeowner dues doesn't change anything. Either A or C could have paid the dues, and then foreclosed against B (they would have stood in the shoes of the HOA).

Now, what has been created is a mess. Good luck.

Re: who owns the house

While recording a deed is done to "put the world on notice" that one owns property, once the deed is signed and delivered to B the property belongs to B, whether the deed is recorded or not. This was a terrible way to transfer the property and a perfect example of why real estate brokers and attorneys should be consulted before entering into this type of transaction. "A" cannot take any action against B because B's promises were not in writing. If properly structured, A could have foreclosed on B then legitimately sold the property to C, without anyone worrying about being sued.

A is potentially liable to both B and C for their damages because A transferred the property to C knowing full well that A had already transferred the property to B. B may prevail against C because the deed was executed and delivered to B before A transferred the property to C.

There is probably more to this situation than you disclose in your question. I would suggest that everyone seek their own independent counsel, go over all of the documents (what few there seem to be), and discuss this matter in detail. Only then can the parties get the advice they need in this matter.

Re: who owns the house

An unrecorded deed (whether quitclaim or grant) is good against the parties (here, A and B) and anyone else with notice of B's rights. C's case against B would be very weak if B were in possession and thus appeared to C to have some rights at the time C was considering the deal.

An unrecorded deed is not valid against a "bona fide (good faith) purchaser for value, without notice" of the unrecorded deed. "For value" means the amount paid bears some realistic relation to the true market value so that there is no element of a gift or some kind of sham transaction. "Without notice" excludes the parties to the unrecorded deed, since they clearly know about it. Others who would be deemed to have constructive notice of the unrecorded deed would include any would-be buyer who noticed, or should have noticed, that someone other than the seller was living on the property. That "someone else" could be just a tenant, but it could also be the real owner, and the wannabe good-faith buyer has an obligation to investigate.

The other two answers are both right; I especially like Mr. Hoffman's answer, and my comments are an attempt to add a little, not to correct anything already said.

Re: who owns the house

Because of the complicated nature of the situation and the numerous facts which are still not covered in your question my best advice he is don't wait for an answer from want to rue would go to a real estate attorney who is expert in this area. You need to tell him/her all, all of the facts answer all of the questions that you can get the proper advice.i have been practicing law in this speciality for over 30 years in the san francisco bay area and if you wish to consult with me you can contact me at 925-945-6000.

Re: who owns the house

We need to review the documentaion and the lawsuit. Pleae contact our office at 714 363 0220 for consultation.