Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Real Property

One third each, subject to each tenant's right of offset for money paid towards the property (mortage, insurance, taxes, etc.)

For example, if only one tenant paid 100% of the costs of the upkeep of the property, then that tenant is entitled to "reimbursement" from the other two, which is accomplished through the partition action.

***No Legal Services or Attorney Client Relationship - Although this email may provide information concerning potential legal issues, it is not a substitute for legal advice from qualified counsel. You should not and are not authorized to rely on this email as a source of legal advice. Until a formal Retainer Agreement is executed, any communication between you and The Guerrini Law Firm cannot create any attorney-client relationship between you and The Guerrini Law Firm.***

Re: Real Property

Generally speaking, all contributions, etc. being equal, each party would be entitled to one-third of any sales proceeds. The parties could always agree among themselves to a different distribution. With respect to "buying out" other parties, unless the parties all agree to a sale, there would need to be a partition action.

Re: Real Property

Joint tenants always have equal shares of legal title. When there are three joint tenants, each owns 1/3. In addition to legal title, however, there is so-called equitable title, which may differ from legal title and would affect rights in appreciation; there is also the right to reimbursement mentioned in the previous answers, which is a dollar-for-dollar payback matter and does not affect percentage ownership.

Equitable title is most likely to differ from legal title when the contributions to down payment don't square with the percentages of legal title, but if this property was inherited (my guess), there is probably no disparity between legal and equitable title (although a careful attorney should interview you and investigate the possibility).

If one owner wants to buy out the others, it is simply a matter of private negotiation; no owner is required to buy or sell at any given figure. Realistically, of course, a fair division of the net proceeds would reflect whatever a court would order in a partition, since a partition suit is always a possibility lurking in the background at a buy-out negotiation.

In a partition, after the court determines that the plaintiff is entitled to partition (there are few defenses, but they include an express or implied waiver of the right), there would be a sale and a further proceeding to determine the fair division of the net proceeds after paid liens and costs of sale are deducted. At that point, the judge or a court-appointed refereee would review the arguments for reimbursement of excess expenses, sharing of third-party rents received by an owner in possession, etc. and then a final order would be handed down.