Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: title in question

I am not sure from your question as to what you want. If the deed to you was not a forgery, you should not deed the property back to him if you do not want to. Please call me if you have any other questions. Our firm handles cases throughout California.

Re: title in question

Way to little facts with the way too much involved in the question. Forgery is when somebody else signed something. Why he is saying this is not apparent from your question and therefore you must immediately find an attorney who is expert in real estate law. Reidy answers on this computer given the complexity of what you're asking in such a short form will do you no good. If you wait too long depending upon who is questioning the title to the property potentially, both of you can lose it. 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: title in question

Depending on how the payments were made for the rebuilding, as my co-counsel have pointed out, will determine the ownership in the house. This may give you an argument for a separation of value between the home and the land. Perhaps you don't own 1/2 the deed to the land (because of the transmutation issue) but you may still own 1/2 the value of the home that sits upon the land.

Not sure, it would take some research, but it was a passing idea.

Scott

www.No-Probate.com

Re: title in question

First of all, the manner in which title is taken is not conclusive of ownership. Thus, when the house was rebuilt last year, what money was used? Community property money? If so, it's likely that by vitue of the marriage, and his use of community funds, that the house is now community property (essentially half yours). As to the signing of a deed, only the person with power of attorney may sign another's name on a deed, at least for title insurance purposes. However, if there is some evidence that he instructed you to sign his name, I think an argument could be made that the deed is valid.

Re: title in question

Your signing his name at his request is not forgery unless the two of your were conspiring to defraud a third party, which is unlikely, and if it were the case, he'd be at least equally guilty.

Until the old house was demolished and rebuilt, it would probably have been 100% his, assuming it was fully paid for. A small community-property interest (called a "pro tanto" interest) can arise when either of your post-marriage earnings are used to make equity payments on a mortgage, but it sounds as though this house may have been all paid for.

The demolition of an old house and construction of a new house opens the door for a substantial community interest to arise. How much depends upon the dollar amounts involved, and whether and to what extent value salvaged from the old house (including the value of the lot itself) can be traced to the new house. More likely than not, the two of you put up "new money" from your marital community toward the new house. This would create a significant community interest.

Has the deed been recorded? Probably not, since it probably wasn't notarized. Still, it could be valid as between the two of you.

I'm going to research the deed-validity question and if I can add anything to the prior answer re deeds signed at the request of a spouse, I'll post a follow-up answer.

Re: title in question

After some research, I think the gift deed from your husband to you is invalid under the current law respecting transmutation of property between spouses. While I found no case specifically saying that a spouses cannot authorize the other to sign a transmutation, it's pretty clear that an agency (to sign the other spouse's signature) would require at least written authorization if not a formal power of attorney.

Nevertheless, a court might find the failed attempt to transfer the property of some importance in adjudicating the parties' rights in the property. So, I wouldn't consider the deed totally useless in any litigation that comes up in the future, such as a divorce.