Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
Let's say that A (the victim) was not aware that he was vested in a real property since 2010. A's father had added A to his property to make joint tenants in 2010. Now B (the perpetrator) is aware of this and really wants this property. Four years later in 2014, A's father passes away and the property becomes solely vested in A. A is unaware of this. B has been planning to get all important documents from A's father's attorney before A can get them. B hires an attorney to side with him. B's attorney makes A's real property appear to be vested in A's father's trust which never exsisted. Through manipulation, trickery, lies A believes this to be true. At the end of this frivolous administration A loses his real property to B still unaware of the truth. Three years later A finds evidence that he did in fact own the property before B had acquired it. QUESTION Since A legally owned half of property four years before A's father died, wouldn't B and his attorney get it for robbery? I believe this is real estate fraud. What is your opinion? Thank you for your time.
1 Answer from Attorneys
Both the form and the substance of your question raise the possibility that this is either a law school homework or take-home exam question, and LawGuru attorneys aren't supposed to provide student assistance. However, I can give you some information without violating the policy, just in case this is a real question. Indeed, late July is a funny time for law school to be in session. First, as to robbery, look up the definition of robbery and ask yourself whether all the essential elements are present. Second, note the possible statute of limitations problem, then consider whether there is a way around the problem. Third, B and his attorney appear to have committed civil fraud, and possibly criminal fraud as well, but most California DAs would leave prosecution to the victim in civil court.