Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Whether your girlfriend has rights to the property depends on whether her name is attached to the property as a co-owner (example: joint-tenancy, etc.). The length of your relationship generally will not create an ownership interest for your girlfriend unless there is a common law marriage. However, since California does not recognize a common law marriage, it is unlikely that they will recognize your relationship to be. One exception to this is if you previously come from a state that does recognize common law marriage and if you are held to be in a common law marriage under that state, if you are, then California will recognize that you are married. To be safe, you should have your girlfriend sign a simple rental agreement, or at least some documentation that she does not own any interest in the property.

Disclaimer: This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship and such a relationship can only be formed through a signed written agreement. This communication is not legal advice and should not be solely relied upon in making your legal decisions. Any situation depends on many different facts and specific laws that require an in-depth legal consultation to evaluate the best solution for your needs.

You're probably OK, at least under conventional real-estate law principles, so long as you don't promise her anything. There is no marital community, and hence no community-property interest, within a couple that isn't married and doesn't erroneously believe it is married.

However, there are cases where California courts have "squared up the deal" upon complaint of a financially-abused former cohabitant. "Stick with me baby, and someday all of this will be yours" is sometimes enforced. You might want to find and read some discussions of the famout Marvin v. Marvin "palimony" case, (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, via a Web search engine. In Marvin as well as most other high-profile palimony cases, the plaintiffs have lost, but the decisions have established that it is at least possible to prevail in a palimony case.

The manner in which you take title will determine how the house is treated when you split up.

Roach is wrong. Whipple is right. A rental agreement is a must. A cohabitation agreement would be better.