Asked in Real Estate Law for California

Q: Two friends purchase an investment home together (JTWROS). Friend A retains a law firm to remove Friend B from title.

SCENARIO: Two friends purchase an investment home together (JTWROS). Friend A has the necessary funds for the down payment and closing costs, but has poor credit and insufficient income to qualify for a loan. Friend B has excellent credit but very little in the way of savings. After the close of escrow, friend A moves into the property. Friend A, after living there for seven years and paying all expenses, wants to sale the house that has appreciated over 60%. Friend A retains a law firm to remove Friend B from title claiming Friend B is only a co-signer and is not supposed to be on title. The law firm proceeds to file a Quiet title action against Friend B. An attorney said legal fees to defend would be over 20K!

What are friend B's options? What would be a good defense? Is 20K typical for a case like this?

Related Topics:
3 Lawyer Answers
James Clifton
PREMIUM
James Clifton
Answered
  • Fayetteville, GA
  • Licensed in California

A: Friend B's options and potential defenses in this scenario would depend on various factors. Here are some potential options and defenses Friend B might consider:

Review the Original Agreement: Friend B should carefully review any agreements or contracts signed at the time of purchasing the investment property. This could include the purchase contract, any partnership agreements, or other documentation outlining the terms of ownership. If these documents clearly establish Friend B's ownership rights, it could serve as a strong defense against attempts to remove them from the title.

Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship (JTWROS): If the property was purchased as JTWROS, both friends have equal ownership rights to the property, and Friend A may not have the unilateral authority to remove Friend B from the title without their consent. Friend B could argue that their ownership interest is protected under the JTWROS arrangement.

Contribution to Expenses: Friend B could argue that they contributed to the expenses associated with the property, such as mortgage payments, property taxes, or maintenance costs, despite not living in the property. This could strengthen their claim to ownership and undermine Friend A's assertion that they were merely a co-signer.

Equitable Contribution: Friend B might argue that they contributed to the appreciation of the property through their creditworthiness and financial stability, which enabled the purchase of the property in the first place. They could claim a right to a portion of the appreciation in line with their contributions.

Regarding the legal fees, $20,000 for defending a Quiet Title action may be within the typical range depending on the complexity of the case, the jurisdiction, and the attorney's hourly rates. Defending against a Quiet Title action can involve extensive legal research, document preparation, court appearances, and negotiations, all of which can contribute to higher legal fees. However, the actual costs can vary significantly. Some attorneys may offer a contingency fee arrangement to avoid a large upfront expenditure.

Schedule a free consultation to make sure your interests are protected.

1 user found this answer helpful

James L. Arrasmith
PREMIUM
James L. Arrasmith pro label Lawyers, want to be a Justia Connect Pro too? Learn more ›
Answered
  • Sacramento, CA
  • Licensed in California

A: In this scenario, Friend B has several options to defend their ownership interest in the property. Here are some key points and potential defenses:

1. JTWROS (Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship): This type of ownership means that both friends have an equal and undivided interest in the property. Friend A cannot unilaterally remove Friend B from the title without their consent or a court order.

2. Contributions to the purchase: Although Friend A provided the down payment and closing costs, Friend B's strong credit likely enabled the loan qualification. This contribution could be considered valuable and may support Friend B's claim to ownership.

3. Verbal agreements and intentions: If there were any verbal agreements or understandings between the friends regarding the nature of their ownership, these could be used to support Friend B's position. However, proving verbal agreements can be challenging.

4. Potential partition action: Friend B could file a partition action to force the sale of the property and divide the proceeds based on their respective interests. This could be a countermeasure to the quiet title action.

5. Unjust enrichment: Friend B could argue that allowing Friend A to keep the entire appreciated value of the property would result in unjust enrichment, especially considering Friend B's role in securing the loan.

Regarding the legal fees, $20,000 might be on the higher end for a case like this, but it's not uncommon. The actual cost will depend on factors such as the complexity of the case, the attorney's experience, and the location. Friend B could explore alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, which may be less expensive than litigation.

Ultimately, Friend B should consult with an experienced real estate attorney to assess the specific facts of the case and develop a strong defense strategy. They may also want to explore the possibility of negotiating a settlement with Friend A to avoid costly litigation.

1 user found this answer helpful

Delaram Keshvarian
Delaram Keshvarian
Answered
  • Orange, CA
  • Licensed in California

A: Thank you for asking the question!

Quiet title action

It is a remedy in the court of equity and it is about fairness. Intention of the parties at the time of obtaining the property is important.

Intention of the parties can be establish by parties testimony, and from facts implicitly. B's credit was run for the purchase of property, but he did not receive any consideration in return. B expected consideration and that is why B's name was added to the property as JTWRS and remained in the title up to now.

The court does not get into the value of consideration. But the share/percentage allocated to each party is based on fairness and intention. Court considered the type of ownership is JTWRS, with no specific allocation of percentages. Also, A has paid all the expenses. Probably, B can claim up to 50% of the property, but during partition A gets reimbursement for part of A's expenditures (because B has not participated in finances at all).

Since the ownership was JTWRS, both A and B has the right of access to the whole property. If B was not ousted from the property, A has likely not gained the title of the whole property under adverse possession.

It seems B has meritorious claim over the title of the property.

Quiet title action is done through litigation in Civil court. It can take 2-3 years. The price can vary based on how soon parties settle, how complicated the case is, etc.

This is merely discussion of general laws and not a legal advice. For a comprehensive advise, more specific facts and investigation are needed. I recommend you consult with an attorney in more detail.

1 user found this answer helpful

Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.

The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.

Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.