In Wood v. Henley, the California Court of Appeal held that a co-owner’s family could not take an absent owner’s half interest in Ventura County land by living on it, improving it, and paying taxes, because possession by one co-owner is possession for all.
In California, paying someone else’s property taxes does not give you ownership. Taxes matter only as one element of adverse possession, and a co-owner who pays more than their share is reimbursed in a partition action.
In Adams v. Hopkins, the California Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations never bars a partition action between co-owners. Time matters only when a co-owner has already lost title to another through adverse possession.
In Preciado v. Wilde, the California Court of Appeal held that a co-owner cannot take a relative’s share by adverse possession through exclusive use alone. Between co-owners, the bar is higher than between strangers.
Hacienda Ranch Homes v. Superior Court defines ouster as the wrongful exclusion of a co-owner and holds that paying the taxes, maintaining the land, and posting a for-sale sign did not let one co-owner take the whole property from the others.
No. An eviction won’t remove a co-owner, because each co-owner has an equal right to possess the entire property. A partition action is the way to end the co-ownership.
A 50% owner of California real estate has the right to force a sale through a partition action, occupy the entire property, and collect 50% of the net rental proceeds, among other rights.
Ouster happens when one co-owner wrongfully excludes another from property they own together, such as by changing the locks, denying the other owner’s title, or refusing them entry.
Co-owners often ask whether moving out of a property means giving up their ownership. In California, adverse possession between co-owners is very hard to prove.
Representing co-owners statewide. Find your nearest Talkov Law office.
Practical guides from attorneys who focus exclusively on California partition actions.
The information on this site, including the Talkov Law Blog, is intended for general information purposes only. By using this site, you agree that any information contained in the site does not constitute legal, financial or any other form of professional advice. Information on this site may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, correct or up-to-date.
