Can a tenant sue me if I am not on the deed?

[Kimmietime]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
In California a house that is purchased in my husband's name is considered 50% mine even though I am not on the deed. If a tenant is going to sue would they sue only him since he is on the deed or do they sue both of us?
Thank you,
Kimberly

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
In California a house that is purchased in my husband's name is considered 50% mine even though I am not on the deed. If a tenant is going to sue would they sue only him since he is on the deed or do they sue both of us?
Thank you,
Kimberly

It depends on whether or not you are considered a landlord. Personally, I'd sue you and let you prove that you shouldn't have been sued.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
In California a house that is purchased in my husband's name is considered 50% mine even though I am not on the deed. If a tenant is going to sue would they sue only him since he is on the deed or do they sue both of us?
Thank you,
Kimberly

Since CA is a community property state then both assets and debts accumulated during the marriage are joint. Therefore I suspect that any attorney handling a lawsuit would include both of you in the suit, although there may be a chance that you could be excluded.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
In California a house that is purchased in my husband's name is considered 50% mine even though I am not on the deed. If a tenant is going to sue would they sue only him since he is on the deed or do they sue both of us?
Thank you,
Kimberly

A house that is purchased in your husband's name may or may not be 50% yours!

 

[latigo]

Since CA is a community property state then both assets and debts accumulated during the marriage are joint.

As would be expected your layperson's opinion of California property law is as flawed and unschooled as the OP's. Not every acquisition during marriage nor liabilities incurred are necessarily those of the community estate.

Therefore I suspect that any attorney handling a lawsuit would include both of you in the suit, although there may be a chance that you could be excluded.

Suspicions and chances - included or excluded? Never paint oneself into a corner. Right, Ld?

 

[LdiJ]

As would be expected your layperson's opinion of California property law is as flawed and unschooled as the OP's. Not every acquisition during marriage nor liabilities incurred are necessarily those of the community estate.



Suspicions and chances - included or excluded? Never paint oneself into a corner. Right, Ld?

Any attorney worth their salt, in a community property state, is going to attempt to get both spouses included in the suit. Whether or not she can be excluded from the suit depends on details that we do not know.

 

[latigo]

Any attorney worth their salt, in a community property state, is going to attempt to get both spouses included in the suit. Whether or not she can be excluded from the suit depends on details that we do not know.

Seems odd that you weren't troubled by the lack of essential details in making the mistaken declaration that "both assets and liabilities accumulated during marriage are joint"? (Whatever your word "joint" is supposed to mean.)

 

[tranquility]

Any attorney worth their salt, in a community property state, is going to attempt to get both spouses included in the suit. Whether or not she can be excluded from the suit depends on details that we do not know.

He knows. His issue is with the comment:

both assets and debts accumulated during the marriage are joint.

Assets accumulated during the marriage are *presumed* to be community property. Not joint and not for certain because of separate property or transmutation issues.

 

[STEPHAN]

The tenant can choose to sue anybody. He could even sue you neighbors. If that would be successful is a different question. But the burden of prove would in some cases be on the person that was sued.

 

[LdiJ]

He knows. His issue is with the comment:

Assets accumulated during the marriage are *presumed* to be community property. Not joint and not for certain because of separate property or transmutation issues.

Ok, I admit that the section you quoted was worded poorly.