Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: property holdings

You can sue the other party for partition. However, in a partition action for a piece of residential property the court determines what each owner's percentage interest is then, generally, orders the property sold and the proceeds divided by the court in accordance with each owner's interest. One owner cannot simply "have right to the property without" the other party's consent and generally will not be able to "pull out equity" without the other party's consent.

Re: property holdings

Please refer to my answer to what must be a previous question from the same inquirer. Using that answer as a foundation, let me add a few thoughts based on this additional question:

(1) When two people take title to property jointly but one puts up all the down payment, there is always an equitable issue as to whether co-ownership was really intended, or whether the party that put up all the money got the short straw and really is entitled to full ownership. Because percentage-of title not matching percentage-of-down-payment situations are suspect, the party that did not contribute equally to down payment is at risk of losing his or her title in any contest over ownership. For further research, look at the concept of a "purchase-money resulting trust."

In the facts of your situation, I think you are fairly secure as to holding on to a 50% ownership, but you are in the weaker position vis-a-vis the gu who put up the cash and his future heirs. I hope there is somewhere a written agreement between these guys.

I know, you have an argument about paying the taxes and mortgage, and that would be taken into consideration in a partition, but this does not cure the possible percentage-of-ownership problem.

Finally, co-owners can technically borrow against their share of the net equity in real property without the consent of the other co-owner, but since their half interest is poor collateral, most lenders won't touch co-owned property.