Joint Tenants Rights for Land Owned in California

[stealth91]

My question involves real estate located in the State of: California
2007 my ex-boyfriend and I purchased property. He paid the most for the property and I contributed a small amount. There is no agreement that I owed him any money towards the purchase. He said it was a gift. We broke up in 2008 he left for Australia. Now he has hired an attorney here in Calif. to sue me for the property or to pay him for the value of the property or partition. He is still in Australia but he sued me in state court. I doubt he can return to the U.S. because he was brought over to marry someone in 2007, he married and 2 weeks later got divorced. Not sure but his visa may have been revoked back then. Shouldn't he have sued in Federal Court? And without a written agreement to pay him what right does he have to sue me to pay him for a gift? Also, there is a court document dated Feb. 8 and the court states the that the plaintiff had only 60 days to serve the respondent. I was not served until April 27th, more than 60 days and I was easy to find I lived at the same address since 1997.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Shouldn't he have sued in Federal Court?

No. You and the property are in California, he was in California when the issue arose, and it's a state law issue.

And without a written agreement to pay him what right does he have to sue me to pay him for a gift?

You told us that you and he are joint tenants. That means that the title is all he needs to prove that you and he are joint tenants. Your claim that the entire property was a gift to you, with no writing to support that claim, is what's likely to fail in court.

Also, there is a court document dated Feb. 8 and the court states the that the plaintiff had only 60 days to serve the respondent. I was not served until April 27th, more than 60 days and I was easy to find I lived at the same address since 1997.

As the case does not appear to have been dismissed, odds are the court extended the time period for service. Check with the court.

[Foster_Foster]

I hope you haven't been sitting back twiddling after being served (and given your questions, that seems likely). You need to consult counsel about responding to the lawsuit, because if you were served on April 27 and haven't bothered responding, you're already risking a default judgment. Sure, you'd be free to file a motion to set it aside 'cause he served you 20/whatever days late, but two wrongs don't make a right and you can't expect to sit back for over two months after being served and expect things to work out the way you want (you don't mention having filed a response).

I didn't interpret your comment about him never pestering you for money as it related to what money was put toward the house when it was purchased as a gift as meaning that he gave you the house.

If you want to keep the house, I'd expect to have to give him half its equity (and take over any mortgage that may exist). Or, if he wants the property, I'd expect him to cough up half its equity to me. The court in the end may order the place sold and the proceeds divided however, depending on whose arguments about what are successful.

[davidyjmaar]

This is wrong and no one can sue anyone if the amount payed has no legal or written agreement in paper, whatsoever.

[Foster_Foster]

"This is wrong and no one can sue anyone if the amount payed has no legal or written agreement in paper, whatsoever. "

Not clear to what you're referring when you say "this is wrong", but it's incorrect to say that someone cannot sue another "if the amount payed (sic) has no legal or written agreement in paper." (Also not sure what you mean by "no legal or written agreement in paper", which is awfully garbled.)

[davidyjmaar]

"This is wrong and no one can sue anyone if the amount payed has no legal or written agreement in paper, whatsoever. "

Not clear to what you're referring when you say "this is wrong", but it's incorrect to say that someone cannot sue another "if the amount payed (sic) has no legal or written agreement in paper." (Also not sure what you mean by "no legal or written agreement in paper", which is awfully garbled.)

When I say this is wrong it means exactly what it means. I am saying that whatever with stealth91 is wrong, his ex shouldn't have sued. What's there garbled? It is written is simple English. No legal agreement means no evidence that the deal ever happened. I don't know why people don't understand such silly things. Duh!

[Foster_Foster]

"I am saying that whatever with stealth91 is wrong, his ex shouldn't have sued."

Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here. You didn't say "shouldn't have sued," you said "no one can sue anyone" (and that's flatly incorrect, because anyone can sue anyone else for anything even if it's "wrong").

"It is written is simple English."

Well, not quite.

"No legal agreement means no evidence that the deal ever happened."

OK, first off, you say "legal or written agreement" above and I don't know whether you're being redundant or what. I also don't know where you get the idea that there's "no evidence" just because something isn't in writing (there are various types of evidence), and for all you know, there are many emails on the topic. At any rate, an agreement does not have to be in writing to be valid/enforceable. Question is what this "agreement" supposedly was, if there was one in the first place.