Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

The answer to Part One of your question (What can I do?) is twofold. First, there is a kind of lawsuit complaint called "purchase-money resulting trust" in which someone who paid X% of the down-payment for property, but would up with only Y% (a smaller number) ownership as shown on the public records, can ask the court for an order se-setting his or her ownership percentage to reflect the actual source of the purchase money, i.e., the down-payment.

An example I often use is that J.D. Rockefeller has heard that oil has been discovered in Texas, so he sends his trusted clerk, Bob Cratchit. off on the morning train to Houston with a satchel full of C-notes. Cratchit buys several ranches in the new oilfield, but since he doesn't remember how to spell Rockefeller, he puts the ranches in his own name. When Rockefeller finds out, he sues Cratchit and the court finds that Cratchit isn't really the owner; he simply holds the properties in trust for J.D., and as trustee of the resulting trust he has a duty to convey the properties to the trust beneficiary, Rockefeller. Note that the term "resulting" does not mean "result from" or have anything to do with the everyday meaning of the word. Instead, it comes from another meaning of its Latin roots, something like "leap backwards" (compare the "sault" in "somersault" to the "sult" in "result"). A resulting trust is one that, although found by the judge today, really came into existence with, and at the time of, the purchase. Thus, the court's role in a purchase-money resulting trust case is not to "impose" the trust on the property, but to find its existence.

If you paid 100% of the purchase money (down-payment) with your own funds, you have a pretty good claim for 100% ownership of the property. The other person's defense might be that you make a gift of 50% ownership. Such a defense might succeed if the relationship between the parties was husband and wife or parent and child, or if there is any documentary evidence of your intention to make a gift of a half interest.

OK, so a suit to find a purchase-money resulting trust is thought #1. If the facts don't support a claim for a PMRT, the fallback is a lawsuit for "partition" under the statutory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, sections 872.010 - 874.240. A partition suit is the usual remedy for a co-owner who is no longer happy with the situation. This kind of lawsuit is called a "partition action" because in older times when most of us lived on farms and ranches and there were no zoning or subdivision laws, courts would simply split the property into parts and award the former co-owners smaller individual parcels. This is rarely possible nowadays so instead courts are authorized by statute to order the property sold, and then the net cash proceeds are distributed ("partitioned") to the former co-owners. The court will take evidence to determine what portion of the cash proceeds each former co-owner is entitled to receive, taking into account one owner's excess contributions to costs such as mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, insurance, necessary maintenance, and in some cases, improvements. The court will also consider division of any net rental income received by one former co-owner from third-party tenants that oughtta be split.

In your particular case, whether to sue for PMRT, for partition, or both in the same suit, is a question that is best determined after review of how the down-payment was made, the relationship of the co-owners, and maybe a few other considerations.

As to what it would cost, that's sort of like asking "How long is a piece of string?" The other party in such cases often agrees to a realistic settlement soon after being served with the lawsuit and realizing what the outcome will be. In such a situation, which is rather common, I'd say a couple thousand. On the other hand, if the defendant digs in and litigates to the bitter end (much less common), fees and expenses could rise well over $10K.

Please feel free to contact me personally for a further review and a proposal to handle this potential case for you. Among other things, I am in Sacramento fairly regularly on other business and I could represent you in a case there without charging for travel time or costs.