Legal Question in Real Estate Law in Nevada

Re: reno 160 acers

Your property issues are complex. You would have to invalidate the initial transfer. Please contact our office (Nevada) to discuss further.

Re: reno 160 acers

You do need to spend the money on an attorney; putting the family back together can not be done but it would help if the attorney is not nasty in how they perform their role. With $500,000 at stake, you need to have someone very competent represent you.You need to speak to some third person who can be honest with you and knows what is going on as to why your Mother is acting that way.

There are many facts missing from your statement, such as who paid the taxes on the property, why does she say the contract is worthless, date of death(s), who else knew about the original agreement, etc. If your mother is claiming the property as hers via joint tenancy, then the property is not part of your brother's estate but rather his ownership interest disappeared on his death. Check with the daughter as to whether she is claiming it is part of the estate and how far as the probate process gone. Go to the courthouse and look up the entire file and make a copy of everything in it s that yo can give it t your attorney.If he quit claimed his interest in the entire property then how do they become joint tenants later? Did either file a gift tax report, notify the County assessor of the transfer so that the property tax rate would go up but then be returned to the same level under Prop. 13? Was the home part of the deal and if so did she pay anything on it or use it at all, as that might indicate a lack of the four elements of joint tenancy. So you might be able to get his children to join limited forces with you as they have no legal right to the property unless you win.

If you have the $40,000 available, you should consider with your attorney whether it might be worthwhile to obtain the property subject to your getting the money back if you win.Some disadvantages of doing that is that it gives her the money to hire an attorney to fight you and if the case eventually settles, and the vast majority do, then she probably will not agree to return any of the money. Once you file suit, immediately impose a lis pendes on the property so that it can not be sold to a bona fide purchaser.

You do seem to have a case [although knowing about the false claim in 2002 and doing nothing may create a big problem]. Good luck.

Re: reno 160 acers

The only way you can reasonably expect to get cooperation from your mother is to get control of the money/land and then she will be nice to you. You need to engage an attorney on this; you see what doing it on your own has done for you. You need an attorney admitted in CA and NV with real estate experience.

Re: reno 160 acers

You have a big problem. They may have wiped out your interest by adverse possession if they can show that they paid the taxes for five years and did something against your ownership interest. Clearly in 2002, your mother took ownership adverse to your interest. When was the deed filed. If prior to June 6, 2002, you may have a problem. You should litigate this as the amount involved is too much to walk away from.

As your mother got title by Joint Tenancy, the probate will not affect the ownership issue since she took title as a surviving joint tenant, which happens automatically at your brother's death.

You have a lawsuit against your brother for breach of contract, which must be filed before 2008 as there is a six year statute of limitation.

I can give you better advice if you fax or email me the written contract.

I would be willing to take the case on a contingency and pay my costs up front to go to Reno. So far, I am the only attorney licensed in Nevada to respond.

Re: reno 160 acers

Since the land is in Nevada, any suit over title to it must be brought in a Nevada court, probably in Reno's judicial district, and prepared and prosecuted by a Nevada-licensed lawyer (unless you're pro se, which I don't recommend!).

Since I'm a California lawyer, I probably have no business offering my two cents' worth here, but reading the question and the answers offered thus far prompts me to make a few comments that you might want to try out on your Nevada lawyer when you retain one....

First, your entire situation may be governed more or less by partnership law, since there is a strong argument that this is or was a general partnership or a joint venture falling under partnership law. Not every co-ownership of real estate is a partnership, but it sounds as though this was (and is). If so, several things of legal importance may come into play. The land itself may be partnership property. Real estate can become partnership property by being used in the partnership or being the object of the partnership's activity EVEN IF the land is never deeded to the partnership, but instead stands in the name of one of the partners! Next, partners have fiduciary duties of "care" and "loyalty" to both the partnership and the other partners. Breach of these duties is actionable by way of lawsuit for damages. Neither the existence of the partnership, nor the characterization of its property, nor the fiduciary duties, is necessarily dependent upon a particular written instrument.

Next, there is a legal principle throughout the Englich common-law world (inculding Nevada, I assume) called a "purchase-money resulting trust" which says that whomever pays the purchase money (down payment) for property is its equitable or beneficial owner even though legal title is taken in someone else's name.

Purchase-money resulting trusts are applied "pro tanto" to situations where X pays 50% (or any other percentage) of the purchase price, but Y gets 100% (or any excessive amount) of record title. So, I would say your brother holds (or held) title to 50% of the land as involuntary trustee for you. Your mother is now (arguably) successor trustee and must convey to you upon your demand.

I may have further thoughts, and if so, I'll write a follow-up answer. I'm approaching the word limit now.

Re: reno 160 acers

Your situation intrigues me, and I have spent several hours researching California law on the subject of whether adverse possession might be a bar to some or all counts you might bring against your family members to reassert your 50% (indirect) ownership interest in the 160 acres.

There is a widely-accepted principle that one co-owner of land cannot adversely possess against another co-owner, because the possession of any co-owner is simply not adverse, unless there has been an "ouster" of the cotenant out of possession by the co-owner in possession. There has been no ouster here - the term is legalese for "kicking out." However, there seems to be no California case directly declaring that a partner cannot adversely possess against the partnership. Nor, for that matter, is there any case suggesting that a partner can adversely possess against the partnership.

Further anent the possible issue of adverse possession defeating your claim, one of the requirements for adverse possession is, strangely enougn, possession. Has your mother ever seen the 160 acres, much less been in continuous and exclusive possession for five years, either personally or through a tenant? Probably not.

If your brother either paid the taxes or shared possession with mom, I would say the requirements of exclusive possession and tax payment aren't met. I think, for example, that possession by a partner is possession by the partnership. So, as long as your brother was on title, alive, and presumably managing the property, you mother would not be accruing "exclusive" possession time. I bet he also paid the taxes.

I hope you will share these thoughts with your Nevada attorney - contact me for a referral if you wish - and that you will keep me posted on the outcome.