Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Quiet title vs. Partition

A quiet title action is only useful when trying to "clear" title. In this case, this would mean to remove your ex-girlfriend from title. Of course you would need a reason first.

Your only true bet is a partition action. There are different splits of equity depending on whether this was more of a business deal or whether it was a "shared home" that you both tried to establish and develop together as a relationship. Also, the fact that the home was in joint tenancy suggests the second of these two scenarios (i.e. shared home).

Be careful. I would try to settle early, perhaps by opening an equity line and writing her a check. Get legal advice on how best to approach the negotiations. Be early. Don't wait for her to hire a lawyer. Give us a call if you would like us to help you. We have several cases like this pending. The call is free.

Re: Quiet title vs. Partition

You will need an attorney. You can expect that quiet title and partition will be alleged by her even if not by you. I have fought cases just like this. Contact me when it is time.

Re: Quiet title vs. Partition

Quiet title would only work if she had no interest in the property. You can seek partition by buy out and buy out her share with cash or equity in the home through a loan.

JOEL SELIK Attorney at Law

800-894-2889 760-479-1515 702-243-1930

www.SelikLaw.com

Licensed to Practice Law in California and Nevada Only CA Licensed Real Estate Broker

CONCENTRATING IN LITIGATION: REAL ESTATE, ELDER ABUSE, APPEALS, AND COLLECTIONS Personal Injury, Contracts, Tax Matters, Business, Malpractice, Appeals, Elder Neglect/Abuse/Nursing Home Malpractice Real Estate, and Other Legal Matters

This is just general information. No representations are made and no attorney client relationship is established by this communication. In most matters there are strict time limitations within which actions may be taken or your rights will be compromised. We are not taking any action on your matter and will not be considered your attorney or tax representative until both you and we have signed a fee agreement.

We, therefore will take no action on your behalf unless a written retainer agreement is signed. There are strict deadlines, called statutes of limitation, within which claims or lawsuits must be filed. Therefore, if you do not retain SELIKLAW, you should immediately seek the services of another attorney or other advisor.

If you send a lawyer or law firm email, your email will not create an attorney-client relationship and will not necessarily be treated as privileged or confidential. You should not send sensitive or confidential information via email. The lawyer or law firm to whom you are writing may not choose to accept you as a client. Moreover, as the Internet is not necessarily a secure environment it is possible that your email sent via the Internet might be intercepted and read by third parties.

Re: Quiet title vs. Partition

You cannot do a quiet title action since she has a 10 % interest in the property. You have to do a partition action. It is possible in the partition action to perhaps include allegations of fraud based upon her prior conduct and prior actions and results. Please contact me if you have any further actions. We handle cases throughout California.

Re: Quiet title vs. Partition

You can sue to quiet title in whatever interest you believe you have, whether it's a 100% interest, a half interest as a joint tenant, or a 90% interest based upon a well-founded belief that since you put up most of the money, most of it should belong to you.

As you may know, when two people own property as joint tenants, they are "legally" each one-half owners; if "legal" ownership were 90-10, the cotenants would be tenants in common and not joint tenants. Fortunately for you, the law also recognizes so-called called (more to come)

Re: Quiet title vs. Partition

(continued) ......the law also recognizes so-called "equitable" or "beneficial" interests in real property.

One of the situations where these equitable interests arises is where 100% of the down-payment is put up by John, but he only gets a 50% legal interest on the record title, or maybe he is left off title altogether. This happens in a multitute of circumstances, including making a gift, fraud, mistake, intention to correct the percentages later, etc. etc.

Except where intent to make a gift is shown by the facts, or where a contract discloses some other outcome was intended, whenever X's money gets him or her a smaller part of record title than the sum invested would indicate, Y, the other title holder, is presumed to hold the excess as an involuntary trustee for X. The involuntary trust is called a "purchase-money resulting trust" and Y, the owner who holds as involuntary trustee, must convey the interest so held to X upon X's demand.

Of course, Y conveys willingly upon X's demand only in a dream world, so a suit to quiet title is usually necessary.

Depending upon the parties' relationship to each other and to the property, including a demand for partition in the quiet-title action may also be desirable.

I have a "resulting trust" case before the Court of Appeal right now, and believe I'm pretty well up on the applicable law. Also, I'm driving from Tomales to Klamath Falls on Sunday to see a client and returning about Tuesday and will be passing through '96067' in both directions, if you feel there's need for a free consultation.