Articles Tagged with joint tenants

2152023-300x300A Marvin agreement is an implied or express contract made between two nonmarried cohabitants/partners regarding property rights during a romantic relationship. Generally, unmarried partners living together can enter a variety of contracts, including but not limited to pooling their earnings to share property equally, holding property as joint tenants or tenants in common, or keeping their earnings and property separate. (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 674; Hill v. Westbrook’s Estate (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 599; Della Zoppa v. Della Zoppa (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1144.) If established, a Marvin agreement gives property rights to a romantic partner similar to that of a married individual. As such, a Marvin claim works similarly to a breach of contract claim but is ultimately based on equity. 

In order to prevail on a Marvin claim, a party must prove that an agreement existed between nonromantic partners to treat the property as theirs together. At Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are more than familiar with Marvin agreements and their relationship with property rights. 

Where do Marvin Agreements come from?

Underwood-Blog-Images-300x300
In California, cotenants are obligated to pay for their portion of common costs. A huge part of owning property jointly is “splitting the bill,” so to speak. From Property taxes to mortgage payments to utilities, the list goes on and on in terms of what all cotenants are responsible for. But that does not mean that each co-owner has to pay an equal share, or always does. And not every property-related expense is one which every cotenant must share in.

Perhaps due to all these various rules and unforeseen responsibilities, joint-ownership arrangements can often fall apart. All it takes is one delinquent mortgage payment to crater the credit scores of all parties involved. In these situations, a co-owner’s best option is a partition action where they can recover their share of overpayments. The Underwood Law Firm is familiar with these matters, and our team has the legal acumen and skills necessary to help you with the process.

What are common costs? 

Underwood-Blog-Images-3-300x300Co-ownership of property brings with it many rights and duties under the law. These rights and duties can vary depending on whether co-owners hold property as tenants in common or joint tenants; these are the two most popular forms of joint ownership in the state. Regardless of the ownership scheme, however, both forms of cotenancy share the same indisputable right: the right of possession. (Bakanauskas v. Urdan (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 621, 628-630.) 

The right to possession is straightforward. Whether a co-owner holds a 1% or 99% ownership interest, they are nonetheless entitled to occupy the whole of the property if they so choose. (Dabney v. Dabney (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 379, 382.) Of course, the “right” often does not meet the practicalities of the situation. To that end, co-owners have developed “TIC” agreements, wherein they agree to limit their right to occupy the jointly owned premises. 

TIC agreements, too, seem straightforward enough, but they became the subject of controversy when used with rental properties. Due to California’s skyrocketing housing costs, some co-owners of rental units enacted TICs amongst themselves so that each could have the exclusive right to occupancy (ERO) in particular dwelling units within the rental property. 

Underwood-Blog-Images-5-300x300Ejectment is an action brought by a party seeking to recover a possessory interest or claim of title in a piece of real property. Typically, an ejectment action arises when a titleholder to a piece of property has been wrongfully excluded or withheld from the property. Therefore, ejectment applies only to those cases where an individual actually has possessory title to the subject property.

Ejectment is a possessory action used to recover possession of land or a piece of real property to a plaintiff in possession who has been wrongfully ousted from the property by the defendant. (Fuller v. Fuller (1917) 176 Cal. 637, 638, 169 P. 369].) In simpler terms, ejectment allows a party to retake possession of real property that the party was wrongfully removed from.

A claim of ejectment is a common issue in disputes over the real property where the parties are seeking to establish who holds title to or an interest in the subject property. Specifically, under Code of Civil Procedure section 3375, an individual who is entitled to specific real property may recover by a judgment for its possession or an order requiring a defendant to deliver possession of the property. (CCP § 3375.) At Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are more than familiar with ejectment actions and the requirements needed to prevail on an ejectment claim. 

Underwood-Blog-Images-4-300x300“Joint tenancy” is a phrase that most people associate with the co-ownership of a property. And indeed, this is correct. Joint tenancy is a form of co-ownership in California, second only to tenancies-in-common in terms of popularity. But just because the words “joint tenancy” are used in a deed or other property-related document does not mean one actually exists. 

For a joint tenancy to be “true” means its effects fully apply. At a minimum, ownership percentages between the owners need to be equal, and the right of survivorship has to be present between the parties. What’s more, is that if any of the statutory or legal requirements associated with its creation are missing, then the joint tenancy does not exist, and it cannot be “true.” 

At Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are well-versed in co-tenancy and the various forms it can take, including joint tenancy. The rights and duties that follow each of these ownership schemes are unique, making them a key issue in real estate litigation. 

Underwood-Blog-Images-1-2-300x300Partitions by appraisal are a unique way to resolve a partition dispute. In essence, they are buyouts that the parties contractually agree to, allowing one party to remain on the jointly-owned property in exchange for purchasing the other co-owner’s interest at an appraised value.

This seemingly middle-of-the-road option, however, is one of the options available for inherited property under the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act. Specifically, the Act permits the non-partitioning party to purchase the other party’s interest at the appraised value, which can allow the property to remain in the family. This effectively grants the non-partitioning property an option to “partition by appraisal.” When a party agrees to buy the property at the appraised value but then cannot ultimately find the money for the purchase, what happens when a partition by appraisal fails?  

What is a Partition?

Underwood-Blog-Images-2-300x300American law has its roots in the laws of England. As such, many of the laws still on the books in the 21st Century depend on what English judges thought prior to our War for Independence began in 1776. Because our modern laws go back centuries since before the United States was a country, we should care about how our legal terms were originally understood as they may implicate a judge’s decision today. The most important of all the English Judges who influenced our modern laws was most likely Sir William Blackstone. 

Blackstone’s 1765 work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, is his most famous legal treatise, forming the backbone of common law analysis as modern lawyers understand it today. Without his efforts centuries ago, our conceptions of property, individual rights, and governmental authority would not be the same. His works remain cited even now in judicial decisions at all levels, including the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Blackstone’s comments on property law are particularly striking, for they bear the foundational ideas now found in our statutes governing real estate transactions, estate types, property rights, and ownership disputes. His analysis of tenancies in common and joint tenancy is so similar to our own California statutes that they warrant their own discussion. 

Underwood-Blog-Images-1-1-300x300Yes. When co-owners of property decide they want to go their separate ways but cannot come to an agreement on a buyout or reimbursements, they can institute a partition action and have the court system solve the problem for them. 

The presence of a life estate, however, substantially complicates this process. Additional evidentiary showings are required, and a partition might not even be available if the life estate owner fights the lawsuit. Thankfully, the Underwood Law Firm is more than familiar with partitions of all types and is here to assist property owners throughout the process. 

What is a life estate? 

Underwood-Blog-Images-300x300A “waste” claim is a means of recovering damages when a tenant on real property does substantial damage to the property itself. Most often, a waste claim arises when a person renting property causes damage while living there. But a waste claim isn’t restricted to landlords and tenants. It applies to nearly all situations where two or more people have some sort of interest in the common property.

On top of being their own cause of action that can be asserted in a lawsuit, waste claims can also potentially be raised in partition actions during the accounting stage. This allows property owners to approach the issue in the manner they see fit. Yet, understanding the contours of a waste claim is not as simple as it may seem. There are situations where damage to property is justified, meaning parties cannot always recover damages for the seemingly unjust actions of their co-owner(s).

In these situations, having an experienced real estate attorney at your side can make all the difference. The Underwood Law Firm encounters waste claims with regularity and is well-equipped with legal expertise to help guide those with property interests through this unique legal issue.

Underwood-Blog-Images-2-1-300x300A realtor should take the necessary legal steps to ensure that all real estate owners do so. When most people buy or sell property, they hire a real estate agent to assist with the process. While the concept of these agreements seems simple enough, these agreements can get complicated when the property in question is owned by more than one person. The Underwood Law Firm is familiar with these disputes and is in the ideal position to assist your dealings with real estate brokers. 

What is Needed for a Real Estate Listing Agreement to be Valid? 

California law provides that an agreement authorizing an agent, broker, or any other person to purchase or sell real estate is “invalid, unless [the agreement], or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or the party’s agent.” (Civ. Code § 1624(a)(4).) 

Contact Information