|
Ask Mike
The information contained in the ASK MIKE column is
provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to be a legal opinion
nor legal advice nor is it intended to be a complete discussion of all issued related to
the law. No attorney client relationship shall be deemed to arise hereunder. Every
individual's factual situation is different and you should seek independent legal advice
regarding specific situations. All information contained within pertains only to
California law unless otherwise noted.
Holding Title
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6
Question 7
Question #1
Question:
I have a client that needs to change her grant deed. She has one daughter on with her as joint tenants and wants to put the other one on also. Can she deed her half over to herself as tenants in common and legally break the J.T.? If she does this, then she absolutely needs to make a will to be able to leave her half to the other daughter, right?
Answer:
Your client certainly can break the joint tenancy by deeding her one half (1/2) interest to herself as tenant in common. The result would be that she and "Daughter No. 1" would each hold undivided 1/2 interests as tenants in common with one another. Normally, she would need a will to leave her 1/2 interest to "Daughter No. 2", but there may be another option. Once she breaks the current joint tenancy, she could then deed her 1/2 interest to herself and Daughter No. 2 as joint tenants. The upshot of this would be that she and Daughter No. 2 would own an undivided 1/2 interest as joint tenants as to each other, but they would be tenants in common with Daughter No. 1 as to the other 1/2 interest. However, in the event of your clients' passing, Daughter No. 2 would succeed to the 1/2 interest she holds with your client, so that both daughters would end up with undivided 1/2 interests as tenants in common.
Of course, everyone's situation is different, and any transfer of a real property interest can entail significant tax and legal consequences. Please note that this is intended only as a general discussion only of the law relating to joint tenancy, and is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, specific legal advice. Before doing anything, your client should first consult with her own attorney and/or tax advisor, who can evaluate her situation and give her specific advice tailored to her particular circumstances.
Question #2
Question:
We own property as joint tenants. Three married couples own this undeveloped lot and
one couple is divorcing. The other two couples, ourselves included, are paying the taxes
due and engineering fees to ready this lot for future sale. We are concerned about
continuing to pay taxes and fees, and make decisions with the knowledge of the divorcing
couple but without their financial assistance. We certainly want to collect their
share of the money we're investing at some point.
Answer:
First of all, the divorce in and of itself will not sever the divorcing couple's joint
tenancy. Regardless of their marital status, they will remain co-tenants with all of
those rights and obligations.
As far as taxes are concerned, joint tenants making these payments normally would be
entitled to a pro-rata reimbursement from the divorcing couple, absent an agreement to the
contrary. This also would hold true for mortgage payments, insurance premiums and
other ordinary expenses of maintaining the property.
On the other hand, this would not be the case for any improvements made in the property.
Absent a prior agreement, a co-tenant who makes any expenditures to improve the
property cannot compel contribution from other co-tenants. However, if there is an
agreement to share these costs, it normally would remain in effect regardless of any
divorce. In that case, the divorcing couple still would be responsible for their
proportionate share of improvements.
Be aware, however, that any transactions involving real property can entail significant
legal and tax consequences. Before deciding whether to move ahead with your plans
for the property, you should first consult your own attorney and tax advisor, who can
fully evaluate all the circumstances.
Question
#3
Question:
I am refinancing my home. My sister and I have jointly owned the property through a
private agreement, but now we are going to be listed on the loan and title papers as dual
owners. What is the best way to record title? I understand that being tenants
in common means the county will reassess the property for taxes, but joint tenancy does
not. Is reassessment based on the market value of the property? Or the refinanced
value?
I also understand that joint tenancy overrides any wills so my share would default to my
sister and not go to my children. Any information you can offer would be great.
Answer:
First of all, my response is based on the assumption that your sister is not presently on
the title as an owner, but will be placed on title when the new loan records. Under
Proposition 13, approved by voters in 1978, property ordinarily is reassessed whenever a
change in ownership occurs. However, the law provides exemptions, including the
creation or transfer of a joint tenancy interest where the original owner remains a joint
tenant after the transfer. This means that if you were to deed the property to yourself
and your sister as joint tenants, there would be no reassessment since you still would be
on title as an owner. On the other hand, if you create a tenancy in common there
WOULD be a reassessment, regardless of whether or not you remain on title.
Whenever a property is reassessed, it is based on the fair market value as of the date the
change in ownership occurs. However, if a reassessment is triggered because you
decide to hold title as tenants in common, only the value of your sister's interest would
be reassessed, not the entire property.
You are correct that the principal feature which distinguishes a joint tenancy from a
tenancy in common is the right of survivorship, overriding any will. The moment a joint
tenant dies, her financial interest vests immediately in the surviving joint tenants, and
there is no interest left for her estate.
Be aware that transferring any real estate interest can involve significant legal and tax
consequences, and you should consult with your own attorney and tax advisor before moving
ahead.
Question
#4
Question:
I am considering buying a house with my girlfriend. I'm a little concerned about
the legal ramifications of this major move. What if we break up? What if one of us
dies? Will I be forced to sell the house if either happens? Is there legal
language that will help us deal with these possibilities?
Answer:
There are two forms of ownership which have serious ramifications in your situation.
The distinguishing feature is the right of survivorship.
If you and your girlfriend become joint tenants, you commit to let the house become the
property of the surviving owner if one of you dies. To create a joint tenancy, the deed
actually must say that you are owners "as joint tenants." If you do this,
neither of you can will away your portion of the house and your heirs may not claim your
portion of the house after your death.
This decision can be reversed after you buy the house. You can record a declaration that
you are severing the joint tenancy or you can record a deed giving your house interest to
yourself and end the joint tenancy.
Your other option is to buy the house as tenants in common. This is the presumed situation
if the deed does not contain any references to joint tenancy. If one of you dies during
your tenancy in common, that person's portion of the house becomes part of his or her
estate.
Unfortunately, you can't protect yourself from the fallout of a bitter breakup. Under
either form of ownership, an owner may sell the portion of the house they own, gift it to
someone or bring legal action to partition the property.
Partitioning the property can occur in one of three ways: the court can order the property
physically divided; can order it sold and the proceeds divided; or can allow one owner to
buy out the other after a fair appraisal. As you can see, you could be forced to sell the
house.
I have two other warnings for you. There are tax ramifications to your choice of ownership
options and you should consult your financial advisor before making a decision. And you
may want to consider the legal ramifications of owning property together under the Marvin
vs. Marvin palimony decision.
Question #5
Question:
I am interested in changing title to my condominium from just my name
to that of my husband and myself. Is there a way that I can perform this transaction
myself, or do I need the aid of a real estate broker or lawyer? In other words, what is
the least expensive way for a literate, high-functioning person to get this done?
Answer:
In order to change the title, you would need to execute either a
Quitclaim Deed or a Grant Deed from yourself as grantor to yourself and your husband as
the grantees. The Deed would need to be notarized, and recorded in the office of the
County Recorder in the county where the property is located. Either type of Deed would
work; the main difference being that a Quitclaim Deed conveys whatever title (if any) the
grantor has in the property, while the Grant Deed contains certain implied warranties of
title.
This is something you could probably handle yourself by obtaining a
Deed form from a title company, completing it and recording it with the appropriate county
recorder. Bear in mind, however, that how you hold title (i.e. as joint tenants, tenants
in common, or community property) can have important legal and tax ramifications, so you
may want to consult with your legal and/or tax advisor before recording the instrument.
However, once you have determined how to hold title, the actual process for completing and
recording the Deed is relatively straightforward.
Question
#6
Question:
My father passed away and he left his property in trust for us kids.
He had remarried, but kept this as his sole and separate property. He gave his new wife
the right to live there as long as she did not cohabitate, vacate for 6 months, etc. She
does not like us and is trustee. I found out she had a sale pending (I suspect to a
friend) and is using our equity to make things nicer for the buyer than required for the
sale. She will receive no money just satisfaction from wasting ours. Here is the question:
the house went into escrow and there is a cloud on title. My dad never removed my mom from
the property. She is a joint tenant. The divorce papers instructed her to deed it to him
and I guess he never got around to recording it. No one can find it. Could she just deed
us the house and circumvent this whole lousy sale or does the new wife's trust have
more clout than the joint tenancy? Is it poetic justice if the trust does not have legal
status for failure to record a quitclaim? I will see an attorney and I need to know which
one wins: the living trust or the deed. Can a judge rule against a deed? This house is now
in escrow and I feel we are being cheated.
Answer:
This is a tricky one. Ordinarily, the short answer to your question
would be that your Mom is now sole owner of the property. When property is held in joint
tenancy, it passes to the survivor immediately upon the death of one joint tenant. As
such, there is nothing to pass with the decedent's estate, whether by will, trust, or
otherwise.
The complicating factor here is that your parents divorced, and the
court awarded the property to your Dad as his sole and separate property. Arguably, the
deed from your Mom would have been a mere formality, and your stepmother, as trustee under
the trust, could now bring an action against her to quiet title.
The silver lining to all of this, I suppose, is that your stepmother
is going to have a difficult time selling the property until the title is cleared. If the
chain of title reflects that your Dad and Mom held the property as joint tenants, than a
title company is not going to be able to insure the sale until your stepmother establishes
her title to the property as trustee.
The best advice I could give you is to see your attorney right away,
so he or she can thoroughly evaluate the situation, and advise you how best to proceed.
Question
#7
Question:
In 1979 my husband purchased a condo as his sole and separate property. Shortly after, he was involved in a live in relationship. She subsequently had him include her on the deed as joint tenants, then later changing (possibly forging) the deed to tenants in common. The relationship ended in 1980 and my husband married in 1983 at which time He tried to get the deed straightened out as he was paying all the taxes and payments on the property. She is not on the loan or the taxes.
We are in the process of filing a quiet title and the judge has set a date for a dismissal of the issue. Besides filing a quiet title, is there anything else that can be done?
Answer:
Unfortunately, based on what you've told me, about the only thing your husband can do at this point is to file a quiet title action. Apparently, your husband put her on title voluntarily, and this gave rise to an ownership interest in the property. Whether the property is now held as joint tenancy or tenants in common is really immaterial since she would hold an ownership interest in either case. Legally, a joint tenant can execute a deed of her interest back to herself as a tenant in common, and this is sufficient to break the joint tenancy. The consent of the other joint tenant is not required. The only ramification of this would be that if the lady died, your husband wouldn't automatically become the owner of her share through right of survivorship; it would pass with her estate instead. As I'm sure your husband's attorney has explained, in order to successfully quiet title to the property, your husband will have to establish that the transfer of the interest to the lady was somehow conditional, and that the condition(s) was/were not satisfied. If it appears to the court that the transfer was intended as an absolute gift, however, he will have a very difficult time convincing the court to divest the lady of her ownership interest.
|
Do you want to send a question to Mike?
|
|
Previous Ask Mike Answers:
|
Limited Liability Company
In recent years Limited Liability Companies (LLC) have become widely used in California. The California Limited Liability Company Act became effective September 30, 1994. The Act is found in the California Corporations Code sections 17000 through 17705. The best definition of an LLC is a hybrid of a partnership and a corporation in which the members have limited personal liability. The members of a LLC are similar to shareholders of a corporation or partners of a partnership, depending on the management structure of the LLC.
The primary reason for creating an LLC is that it combines the corporate characteristics of limited liability for all members, while permitting the members to actively and generally participate in the management and operation of the business with the benefit of "pass through" tax treatment of a partnership. The "pass through" tax treatment is considered an important advantage because earnings passed through the corporation are in effect taxed twice. First, the corporation is taxed on its own income and then when it distributes earnings to its shareholders, the shareholders are then taxed again. A properly formed LLC is not taxed as an entity but rather the members are taxed one time on the earnings from the LLC.
The LLC is formed by the filing of articles of organization by one or more members with the Secretary of State. Once the Secretary of State receives the filing, the LLC is considered formed. It is an entity capable of buying, selling and encumbering interests in real property in its own name and can be dealt with, in that capacity, much in the same manner as a corporation or partnership. In general, LLCs are formed as "member managed" or "manager managed". The type of management will be set forth in the articles of organization. When title is being insured into or out of an LLC, the Title Company will ask for a copy of the articles for examination to determine the type of management and the parties who will have authority to execute documents on behalf of the LLC.
|
|
Bankruptcy and Judgement Liens
A bankruptcy alone does not eliminate an abstract of judgement as a real property lien.
One of the most commonly misunderstood facts about bankruptcy is the effect of discharge upon judgement liens.
Common scenario:
Your seller has an abstract of judgement recorded against him, he has recorded a homestead and filed a petition for bankruptcy. The seller has listed the judgement lien creditor in the bankruptcy and an order has been entered discharging the seller from his debts.
Immediately it is believed that the debt was discharged in the bankruptcy. A debtors discharge in bankruptcy eliminates the debtors personal liability for the judgement. This means the creditor can't pursue collection from the debtor, personally, provided the judgement is a dischargeable debt, but it does not extinguish the judgement lien from the property and can be enforced by execution sale.
Under the bankruptcy code, one course of action that may be taken in order to remove the lien from said property is for the debtor to petition the court for an order "avoiding the judgement lien". If said order is granted, the judgement lien is avoided and the property on which the lien attached cannot be sold at execution sale in an enforcement of the judgement.
|
|
Mobile Housing Units and Alta Endorsement Form 7
When a lender requests insurance on property which contains a manufactured housing unit (mobile home) They often require Alta Endorsement Form 7.
This endorsement provides an insured lender with assurance that the manufactured housing unit (mobile home) located on the land is included within the policy definition of "land".
Lenders request said endorsement since Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) has indicated that it will generally accept a title policy with an ALTA Endorsement form 7 attacheä as sufficient proof that the mobilehome is real property.
The usual guidelines followed for issuing said endorsement are as follows:
First, you must determine that the mobilehome has been converted to real property pursuant to Health and Safety Code 18851 and the record reflects the existence of a Health and Safety Department (HSD) document in compliance therewith, describing the real property, the name of the owner(s) of the real property, and stating that a particular mobilehome has been affixed thereto.
Second, an inspection of said property must be made confirming the foregoing.
Third, determine the mobilehome is free and clear of personal property liens.
Fourth, determine that mechanics lien priority is not an issue.
Fifth, determine that the lender's mortgage ( or other loan documentation) identifies the mobilehome with sufficient particularity.
Generally, there is no charge for issuing said endorsement.
|
|
Facts About Bankruptcy
Many times the subject of bankruptcy seems baffling in its complexity. Actually the basic principals of bankruptcy are fairly simple even though the federal status on bankruptcy are extensive. The reason that the statutes are so complex is because in as effort at social engineering, the lawmakers want to cover every possible contingency. The very complexity of the Bankruptcy Code gives the lawyers ample opportunity to try to obtain interpretation of the law which best serves their clients interest. This results in extensive litigation and occasionally in interpretations of the Code which were not what legislature intended. This on turn results in additional legislation, which results in additional litigation and on and on. Nevertheless, the underlying principals are not as complex as the Code makes them seem. Here we will discuss the personal nature of bankruptcy.
The concept of bankruptcy is an old one in the English common law. If a person could not pay his debts, his creditors hauled him into court, took all of his assets, and used those assets to satisfy their debts. If the assets were insufficient to satisfy the debts, the debtor was taken from the bankruptcy court to debtors prison. Since this is a rather extreme remedy, Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the right to establish "….uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."
As the popularity of debtors prison declined, the concept of giving the debtor a fresh start became one of the primary purposes of the bankruptcy process. It is important to remember that a bankruptcy is a personal action which at time of discharge gives the petitioner (formerly the debtor) a fresh start. The property owned by the petitioner does not get the fresh start, the individual does.
The fact that bankruptcy is a personal action may shed some light on the effect of a homestead in a bankruptcy proceeding. The bankruptcy code acknowledges the validity of homesteads. A homestead is a personal exemption which, in an effort to preserve a person's home, protects a certain amount of an individual's equity in the homestead property. State law determines the extent and effect of a homestead. Thus, if state law says that a person can declare a homestead up to $75,000 and if there is less than $75,000 equity in the property, that equity in the property, that equity is protected by the homestead. This principal operates without regard to the Federal Bankruptcy Code.
|
|
Differences in Types of Bankruptcy
When a petition for bankruptcy is filed, it is as if the petitioner is saying to the bankruptcy court, "Here are all of my possessions, you figure it out." This is called a chapter 7 bankruptcy. (Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies involve the petitioner creating a plan to pay the creditor's back, and are a different breed of cat.) A trustee is appointed to represent the petitioners creditors and divvy up the petitioners assets among those creditors. If a states homestead law says that a certain amount of the petitioner's equity in his home cannot be used to satisfy certain debts, the trustee cannot use that equity to pay off creditors. The court is in no better position than the creditors would be. Thus, when the trustee allows the exemption of the petitioner's property, the trustee is saying that whatever equity the petitioner has in his home is protected by the petitioners declaration of homestead. If state law allows a $75,000 homestead, the exemption is $75,000. If the state has a $50,000 limit, the exemption is limited to $50,000 and so on.
The trustee also has the right to determine that a piece of property has too many liens or encumbrances. In this case, the trustee can abandon the property. If the property is exempt or abandoned, it is no longer subject to the bankruptcy, although the petitioner may still benefit from the protection of the automatic stay which prevents anyone from bringing an action against a petitioner while the bankruptcy proceeding is pending.
After the petitioner's property has been divided among the petitioner's creditors, and those debts which can be satisfied have been satisfied, the petitioner is discharged. This means that the creditors cannot look to the petitioner for payment of any remaining debts. This discharge of the petitioner has nothing to do with the petitioner's property. State law determines the effect of any liens recorded against the petitioners property.
The effect of all this is that if property is deemed exempt or abandoned or if the petitioner is discharged and retains title to the property, any recorded liens are still attached to the property and must be reckoned with. In most instances whatever equity the petitioner has in the property will be protected by the declaration of homestead. Had the equity exceeded the amount of equity protected by the homestead, the trustee would have probably used it to satisfy the creditors. Excess equity (or property upon which a homestead cannot be declared) is the usual reason that the trustee will ask the court to authorize the sale of the property free and clear of existing liens. The free and clear part is intended to make the property more attractive to a potential buyer, assuring the highest price and getting the most money to satisfy the greatest number of creditors.
Remember, a bankruptcy relieves the discharged petitioner of his debts. It has no effect on the petitioner's property. Unless the bankruptcy court decides otherwise and issues an order removing the lien of existing encumbrances, the property is still subject to the effect or recorded liens under state law.
|
|
Civil Code 1183 Compliance
Frequent inquiries are made regarding necessary procedures to be followed , to comply
with California Civil Code 1183, when an acknowledgment of an instrument is taken outside
the United States.
The code section provides that the following officers may take acknowledgment outside
the United States:
a. A Minister, Commissioner, or Charge d' affaires of the United States.
b. A Consul, Vice consul, or Consular Agent of the United States.
c. A Judge of a Court of Record of the Country where the proof or acknowledgment is
made.
d. Commissioners appointed by the Governor or Secretary of State for that purpose.
e. A Notary Public.
For the purpose of assuring that California County Recorders
will accept the documents upon which the acknowledgments appear for recording, one should
be aware that use of the Official set forth in (a) and (b) is the most certain manner in
which to proceed. The use of a Foreign Notary Public can present special problems since
the signature of that notary public must be proved or acknowledged by:
(1) A Judge of a Court of record of the country where the proof or acknowledgment is
made.
(2) Any American Diplomatic Officer, Consul General, Consul, Vice Consul, or Consular
Agent.
(3) By an apostille (certification) affixed
to the instrument pursuant to the terms of the Hague Convention abolishing the requirement
of legalization for foreign public documents.
Of the three prove-up methods, (3) is the most
practical and reliable. Nations who are members of the Hague Treaty are Countries from
which an apostille will be acceptable. The Apostille must be made in the Country where the
proof or acknowledgment was made, by an authority designated to do so by that Country.
|
|
The Lis Pendens Explained
The Lis Pendens
A Lis Pendens gives constructive notice of a pending lawsuit relating to real property
or affecting the title or the right of possession of real property.
The notice is recorded in the County Recorders Office in which the property is located
at the time the complaint or cross complaint if filed, or at any time thereafter. Once
recorded the Lis Pendens imparts constructive notice not only of its contents (provided it
meets statutory requirements) but also of facts concerning the action that could be
discovered by reasonable inquiry.
A Lis Pendens creates a cloud on title which could render the property unmarketable.
Said Lis Pendens remains as long as the action is pending, unless it is voluntarily
withdrawn or expunged (wipe out - erase) by motion to the court. Caution should still be
used even if the Lis Pendens is not removed since danger may still exist for a Title
Company.
The grounds for expungement include the following:
1) Underlying action does not Affect t title to or the right to possession to the real
property described in the notice, or
2) the lawsuit was not commenced, or is not being prosecuted for a proper purpose and
in good faith.
The court may also order the expungement, even if they decide the real property claim
is probably valid, if the court decides that adequate relief can be secured by posting a
bond an amount sufficient to indemnify the claimant against all resulting damages from
removing the Lis Pendens.
If a motion to expunge is granted, a certified copy of an order expunging the Lis
Pendens may not be recorded, until the period of time of filiing a petition for review by
the court of appeals., has expired.
|
|
|