Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

First, no, you cannot call the police to have him removed. Reason #1, he is a spouse of a co-owner and has a right to reside there. Reason #2, the police would tell you "It's a civil matter," by which they mean their job is to respond to serious crimes and occasionally to carry out court orders in civil cases or to take steps to prevent violence or protect property.

The basic law of co-owned real estate is that any and all co-owners have the right at all times to occupy and possess 100% of the property. There is one important limitation on these broad rights. An owner that is out of possession may not use force or the threat of force to get him- or herself back into possession. The out-of-pssession co-owner needs to go to court, claim an ouster, and get a court order. The basics of this are covered in the Civil Code at section 843.

Next, I'm not so sure that the husband owes back rent. Is there an agreement that he was to pay rent? Usually, spouses don't pay rent to live in each other's house. He may even have become a part owner, if your sister has used their community funds to make any mortgage payments since they married. Community funds would include her wages or salary since marriage.

You say you are paying all the bills and the rent. Rent to whom? For what? If you "added your names" to your mother's house, I assume the house is now owned by Mother, Sister 1, and Sister 2 (the percentages don't really matter). Co-owners can pay "rent" to one another, but that's not usual. More often, they share the mortgage expenses, insurance, property taxes and maintenance costs.

California law provides a statutory "exit strategy" for unhappy co-owners of property. It is called "partition" and gets its name from the 19th Century practice of dividing the co-owned farm between the co-owners, often the heirs of a deceased farmer. With city properties and laws regulating subdivision, in modern times most partition lawsuits aim at a court-ordered sale and "partition" of whatever cash is left over after paying the costs of sale, any loans against the property, commissions, and the like, if there is anything left. Partition is covered in great detail in the California Code of Civil Procedure, starting with chapter 872.010 and continuing for several pages of fine print.

The bottom line here is that you have created a real mess by carelessly taking a shortcut to handle your family "financial reasons" and to remodel the house (which you admit in Q2). Most likely, the cleanest way to un-do the mess is via a CCP 872 partition lawsuit, in which you would name ALL other owners, lenders, tenants and claimants as defendants. The mere filing of the suit may result in a quick voluntary settlement. If it doesn't, at least in a year or two the court-ordered sale will occur and the court will divvy up whatever money is left over after costs and expenses, and parcel it out to the co-owners, making adjustments in the amount each receives to reflect (1) relative shares of pre-sale ownership, and (2) excess money spent pre-sale by a particular co-owner for mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance and necessary repairs.

There is even a sub-section of the partition law that allows one of the co-owners to buy out the others, if they agree to be bought out, so the house could stay in the family.

I have some expertise with partition cases, and could handle one in So. Calif. just as economically as a less-experienced lawyer around the corner from you, so contact me if you'd like a proposal.

Mr. Whipple is very experienced and knowledgeable. A partition suit is too complicated for you to handle by yourself, especially since your sister hand her husband will fight you as hard as they can unless, possibly, the know you are represented by competent counsel who will see the matter through to a sale.