Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: tenants in common

So long as father-in-law has a recorded interest in the house, you cannot get a loan without his agreement (unless you find a lender willing to loan on only a 74% interest in a property, which will not happen!)Your only recourse is to file suit for an accounting and contribution to establish that in-law has not paid his fair share and for the court to determine how much your husband is owed, etc. You could also seek to have a court order the property sold in order for each of them to liquidate their interests, in that the parties cannot agree on how to manage, maintain the property.

Re: tenants in common

Basically, you need to hire a good attorney who has expertise in real estate law / litigation and provide him/her the fall of paperwork that has codified the facts set forth immediatly --- I have been practicing law in the San Francisco Bay area for approximately 35 years and expert in the area in the category in which your question is placed. I feel I can help you in this matter and if you wish to consult with me please contact me at 925-945- 6000.

Re: tenants in common

Who set this deal up in the first place? Sounds like a patchwork quilt. Is there any kind of written agreement? Which of them made the down payment? What was the purpose for the combined ownership and what was the original plan or understanding about what would happen down the road? All of these questions have a potential impact on the outcome in court, if it has to go that far.

The items you mention such as payment of expenses do have an impact on how a court would settle this out, but only as items of reimbursement rather than affecting ownership percentages.

The basic legal tool to un-do unhappy cotenancies including tenancies in common and joint tenancies is a specialized kind of lawsuit called a partition action. The co-owners should try to resolve their differences out of court, of course, and the process should include each party getting legal advice as to what would happen (and what wouldn't) if the dispute went to trial. More often than not, when both owners really understand the law, the dispute can be reconciled through a written agreement (which should have been written when the cotenancy was set up in the first place), or by a voluntary buy-out.

If a partition suit is necessary, the parties may still settle voluntarily before trial and a final court ruling, of course; the judge and the court system will put pressure on the parties to settle before trial through mediation or some other process.

I don't understand the reason given for the father-in-law's unwillingness to cooperate, or what influence the sister/executor has here. The role of executor should be unimportant if the testator is still living; executors can be changed easily and perhaps should be here.

Giving you good, useful advice would require more facts and some numbers, but getting the best possible outcome promptly and at low cost seems fairly easy; the parties will probably come togther when both fully understand the law. One of the biggest detriments to negotiated settlements of property disputes is that one party or the other has misconceptions about rights, obligations, valuations and interests.

I do about 75% of my work in Sonoma County and real property disputes of this kind have become a sort of specialty for me recently. Call or e-mail me for a free consultation if you wish.