Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: is silent owner entitled to equity?

Under California law any agreements related to real estate must be in writing. However, there are exceptions. Exceptions include oral agreements that have been partially or fully performed. Other exceptions include promissory estoppal which is an equitable argument that it would be unfair to allow a party to keep the benefits when through fraud or other means they mislead the other person. In this case you could argue these exceptions and if proof was made the court likely would enforce the agreement for one half of the real property.

With respect to the descendants it is likely that they may try to force an entire sale of the property and keep all of the proceeds. This is a real issue which could arise.

The best thing to do at this time is to file a quiet title action to enforce the oral agreement. So that you are not left to the whims of the heirs of the elderly silent owner.

Keep in mind that these cases are fact dependent and additional facts may modify or alter the reply given here.

We are a law firm located in Southern California and we can assist if needed. Our web address is www.cataneselaw.com.

Regards,

R. Catanese

Re: is silent owner entitled to equity?

Well, there are two well-recognized ways to clear up who owns real estate. They are the Quiet Title lawsuit and the lawsuit to Remove Cloud on Title. The former is more all-encompassing and is directed to known and unknown adverse claims, whereas a suit to remove a cloud usually attacks a specific issue or title problem such as an out-of-sequence deed.

In your situation, I think I would go with a quiet-title suit. Since you have nothing in writing, you will have to assert title, if you can, based on a purchase-money resulting trust. You stated that you made all the payments, and enumerated some types you've made, but perhaps the most critical issue will be who paid the down payment and other immediate costs of closing, and how. That will probably establish who is the beneficial or equitable owner of the house, and would trump what is shown on the record title IF all the supporting facts fall into place. This is true whether or not there is a written agreement. When one person pays the down payment and another person ends up on title, equity holds that the title holder holds as an involuntary trustee for the party which put up the down payment, unless it is pretty clear that the making of the down payment was intended as a gift to the title holder. The theory holds true for partial payments and partial title as well - if you got less of a chunk of title than would be suggested by the portion of the down payment you made, the difference is held in trust for you.

The law also recognizes the right of persons, in a partition, to reimbursement of excess expenditure they made. But usually, a claim to title is better than a claim for reimbursement, because with appreciated property it is worth more.

If you want to e-mail me your down-payment information and sny additional facts about the deal, perhaps I can give you more complete analysis and advice.