General Information

Sometimes the true owner of a property finds it necessary to obtain or transfer title to real property to a third party, usually somebody they trust, for a variety of reasons, the most prominent being, as a necessity to obtain financing to purchase the property.

Occasionally, the trusted person later refuses, for whatever reason, to properly return title to the property to the true owner. In this case, there are remedies available to the true owner of the property.

The true owner of the property can file a lawsuit to recover title to the property from the third party. This type of action is similar to, but slightly different from, a quiet title action. This type of action is actually an action for equitable relief, where the true owner is trying to obtain a court order declaring that all right, title, and interest in the property belongs to the plaintiff (the true owner).

If the true owner is concerned that the person holding title to the property might sell or place a lien against the property, it is important to get a lawsuit filed right away, and then the true owner can record something against the property known as a lis pendens (or notice of pendency of action), which in most instances will prevent the person holding title to the property from selling or placing a lien against the property.

I regularly represent clients in the Bay Area, California in these types of equitable actions. If you have questions, or need representation by a California real estate attorney involving a title dispute, please feel free to contact me to arrange for a consultation at (510) 465-0025.

 

 

A partition action is a lawsuit that a owner of property files against the other owners of the same property to compel the sale of the property.  To commence a partition action, the lawsuit (or complaint) is filed.  Then all owners of the properties are served with the lawsuit.

The process can end shortly after that point if the defendant obtains sound legal advise.  There are not many defenses to a partition action, particularly if the property involved contains a single structure such as a house.  With that being the case, it is in the best interests of all of the parties, plaintiff and defendants alike, to resolve the case by either selling the property or where one of the defendants buys-out the plaintiff’s interest in the property.

If the defendant is receiving good advise, an immediate opportunity to settle the case should be present.  Defendants, however, do not always get good advise and do not always make reasonable and rational decisions.  But even those cases, after some time, do get resolved with a buyout or a sale of the property.

I regularly represent plaintiffs and defendants in California partition actions in the East Bay Area.  If you believe that you would benefit from a partition action or have been named as a defendant in a partition action, please feel free to contact me to arrange for a consultation at (510) 465-0025.

Maybe. People can agree to just about anything, as long as the agreement has certain essential components, such as consideration; a writing, if it is required; and the matters agreed to cannot be illegal.

So, if there is a written agreement of ownership that is inconsistent with how title is held on the deed, that agreement may be enforced by the Court even if the deed does not reflect the true terms of the agreement.

Likewise, if the agreement is verbal or even implied based upon conduct, it too may be enforceable. There are, however, far more hurdles to overcome in that situation. The first obstacle would be the requirement under the statute of frauds that an agreement relating to or conveying real property and an agreement that takes more than a year to perform is required to be in writing. Often the statute of frauds defense, however, can be overcome by partial performance or the parties’ conduct.

The next obstacle would be the burden of proof. The holder of record title to property (that is, the title on the deed) is presumed to be the owner of both legal and full beneficial title to the property. This presumption made be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof. The clear and convincing evidence standard requires that the evidence be “so clear as to leave no substantial doubt in the mind of the trier of fact; it must be sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.”

This type of lawsuit is referred to as a Marvin Action. Although these are not easy cases to win, with the right type of evidence, a Plaintiff asserting a Marvin Action can prevail. Further, these cases often settle without the necessity of having to go to trial and fully prove your case. I have represented clients in East Bay California and other parts of the Bay Area California in Marvin Actions. If you believe that you have a right to property under these types of principles or agreements, or have had a Marvin Action asserted against you, please feel free to contact me at (510) 465-0025 to arrange for a consultation to determine whether or not the evidence might support a Marvin Action.

If one person claims to be the owner of an interest in real property, and another person claims to be the owner of that same in interest in the same property, either may sue the other for a judgment resolving that conflict. That type of lawsuit is called an action to quiet title or a quiet tile action. A successful plaintiff obtains a judgment in a quiet title action which “quiets” (or eliminates) adverse claims to the rightful owner’s title.

A quiet tile action can be very useful and effective in a few different scenarios. First, when two people claim the same ownership to the same property. Quiet title actions can also be brought for the purpose of foreclosing or quieting adverse claims that show up as exceptions on title reports. The plaintiff’s objective, under this scenario, is to eliminate a cloud on title, thereby making his or her title marketable.

In some cases, the plaintiff will not have record or legal title (meaning that the plaintiff’s name will not appear on the deed to the property), but the plaintiff will nonetheless have an equitable claim to that title. Although technically under that scenario it is not a quiet title action, it is very similar to a quiet tile action. This situation comes up when title on the deed says one thing, but the parties have agreed to hold equitable title in some other way not reflected on the deed or inconsistent with what is stated on the deed.

A quiet title action is also appropriate to establish that the plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession or that a plaintiff has acquired easement rights through prescription or some other equitable means.

I regularly represent clients in East Bay California in quiet title actions. If you have questions, or need representation by a California real estate attorney involving a title dispute or cloud on title, please feel free to contact me to arrange for a consultation at (510) 465-0025.