When you own real estate with another person, disagreements about improvements are common, especially when one co-owner wants to upgrade the property and the other refuses to pay or participate.
California co-ownership laws give each owner rights to use and possess the property, but those same laws create complexity about what occurs when one co-owner makes repairs and improvements without the consent of the other co-owner(s). Understanding when improvements are allowed, who must consent, and how reimbursement for improvements can help prevent costly disputes.
Can You Make Improvements Without Co-Owner Consent?
A co-owner can sometimes make changes without advance consent, but doing so can create legal and financial risk—especially if the work affects the other co-owner’s use, safety, permits, or value. Because each co-owner has equal rights to possession, making an improvement that does not interfere with the other’s use generally does not violate the law.
Improvements made without consent can create disputes when they:
- Block access or interfere with another owner’s right of possession
- Reduce property value
- Are unsafe, non-permitted, or violate building codes
- Are so substantial they effectively “oust” the other owner
If the improvement excludes the other owner from the property, a co-owner could face claims related to ouster, where the excluded owner alleges they were denied their legal rights to possession.
However, making improvements and repairs comes with financial and legal risks reimbursement in a partition action.
What If the Other Co-Owner Refuses to Pay?
A co-owner is not automatically obligated to reimburse for unapproved improvements. However, the improving owner may later recover their share of enhanced value through a partition action. If the disagreement is ongoing or preventing productive use of the property, a partition action is often the only lasting solution.
Can You Be Reimbursed for Unapproved Improvements?
Only necessary repairs are clearly protected under the law. Improvements made without agreement fall into a gray area of whether reimbursement is permitted in a partition action.
Repairs vs. Improvements
California courts distinguish between necessary repairs and optional improvements.
- Repairs are actions needed to preserve the property (e.g., fixing a roof leak, replacing broken plumbing), which are highly likely to be granted as reimbursements.
- Improvements, in contrast, are optional upgrades intended to enhance value (e.g., remodeling a kitchen, adding a bedroom, upgrading landscaping), which require another level of analysis.
Recovery of Improvements Made Without Consent
In a partition case, courts often reimburse a co-owner who made improvements that increased the property’s value, even if done without consent. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 872.140 and longstanding case law, courts may award equitable reimbursement for improvements that:
- Increased the property’s market value, and
- Were made in good faith, not to burden or disadvantage the other owner.
The measure of reimbursement is usually the value added to the property, not the amount spent.
When a Partition Action Makes Sense
A partition action can resolve disputes involving:
- Improvements made without consent
- One owner refusing to pay for necessary repairs
- Conflicts over remodeling or upgrades
- Situations where one owner lives on the property and the other does not
In a court-ordered sale, the improving owner may recover contributions for repairs, mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and qualifying improvements.
Talk to a California Partition Attorney
Disputes over property improvements can quickly escalate and affect property value, relationships, and your financial interests. Talkov Law’s experienced partition attorneys can help you understand your legal options, including reimbursement and court-ordered solutions.
Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) for a free consultation and let us handle the hard work for you.
