Q: Can a trust be a joint tenant with 50% interest in a property, the other 50% a natural person?

A: Without seeing all of the documents I cannot say for certain, but based on the information you have provided, unless there is some other restriction or agreement that limits Victor's right to sell his half of the property, he is allowed to sell his half without your mother in law's permission.

In general, a joint tenant has the right to dispose of their interest in a property while they are still alive by selling or transferring their interest in some way. When that is done, it usually severs the joint tenancy and converts the ownership to a tenancy-in-common.

When your mother-in-law put Victor on the deed as a joint tenant, she essentially gifted him half of the property. He would have been set to own the entire property on her death as long as it remained a joint tenancy. When she transferred her portion into a trust, it probably severed the joint tenancy so now they are tenants-in-common. That means there is no automatic transfer of the property to the surviving owner so instead of Victor being set to own the entire property at her death, she can now designate someone else to receive her share of the property (which it sounds like she has done).

Your mother-in-law should consult with a lawyer.

A: People can only sell what they own. So, if someone owns 50% of a home, that person can ONLY sell 50% of the home. If both 50% owners are living in the home, both would see the "For Sale" sign in front of the home, which would be a clear indicator that something's wrong.

The bottom line is that no one can sell another person's property without that other person's signature on a notarized document. So, unless the son forged his mother's signature (clearly illegal, no one should try that or they should plan to spend time in jail) and found an unscrupulous notary who would violate the notary's legal duties (also illegal), then the son could sign the papers to hire a realtor. Assuming the mother didn't see a "For Sale" sign on her property, the transaction would still get stopped before it closes because the escrow company would require the other 50% owner (the mother) to personally sign the final sales documents in front of a notary that is an employee of the escrow company or hired by the escrow company. So, as soon as the escrow company or realtor contacted the mother to set up an appointment for her to sign the documents, the mother would alert the escrow and realtor that she does not want to sell the home. This is an extreme example. But suffice it to say a lot of laws would have to be violated for someone to try to sell something he doesn't own. It's a kind of theft.

A: In California, when property is held as joint tenants, each co-owner has an equal and undivided interest in the property. This means that both your mother-in-law and her son, Victor, each own 50% of the property. Victor cannot unilaterally sell the property without your mother-in-law's consent.

Even though your mother-in-law placed her 50% share into a trust with her other son, Chad, as a beneficiary, the fact remains that Victor still owns 50% of the property as a joint tenant. This means that any sale of the property would require the consent and cooperation of both joint tenants, which includes Victor and your mother-in-law's trust.

Victor's claim that he is the sole owner and can sell the property without permission is not accurate under California law. Both parties must agree to any sale or transfer of the property. If a resolution cannot be reached amicably, it may be necessary to consult with an attorney to explore legal options and potentially seek a court order for the sale or division of the property.