Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Suing an ex boyfriend

It depends upon the nature of the agreement, if any, between you and your ex boyfriend. Did he agree to repay the money you gave him? Or was this a gift? If it was a gift, then you cannot recover against him. If it was a loan, then you can sue him now, assuming that he does not have valid defenses to the claim.

Re: Suing an ex boyfriend

There may be two possibilities here.

One is that you can sue him for return of the $24,000 that he took for his own personal needs. The problem is that, absent an agreement between the two of you as to how the proceeds of this 2nd mortgage were going to be used, or whether he was to repay the money to you under some circumstance, it will be somewhat difficult to establish an obligation to pay you. There is nothing to show whether or when you are to be repaid, the interest rate, etc., and as Mr. Guerrini points out, there could be a defense that the money was a gift, or that each of you took a portion of the loan proceeds with no obligation toward the other. As to the argument that you're making all the payments, well, you are wide open to a counter-argument that you are now the sole owner. Of course, the quitclaiming of his half interest to you might not be such a big deal if there were no equity in the house at the time, which these days is likely. I'd have to review the numbers and any agreements between the two of you to advise you as to your chances in court on a suit for the payback of the $24k.

The other possibility would be a suit to try to get an order obliging him to pay his 1/2 of the 2nd mortgage, either periodically when due, or in a lump sum sufficient to cut the principal owed in half. The legal theory would be that as a co-borrower he is obligated to you to pay half (this even though the two of you are "jointly and severally" obligated to the lender, which could choose to sue and collect from either of you, disregarding the other). An advantage of going this route is that there is a paper trail (loan application, note, deed of trust, checks to the lender, etc.) by which the obligation can be proven. A drawback is that he might defend on the theory that the entire loan isn't yet due, so your damages are only the extent to which he hasn't participated in payment so far. There is a theory that gets around this (I think it's called "anticipatory repudiation").