Co-owner locking me out

[robo94553]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My parents were at the end of a divorce when my mother died. Myself and two brothers inherited her one half interest in an 80 acre property she co-owned as tenents in common with her exhusband, our father. Our father lives on the property and refuses to give us access to the home or pay us to have exclusive use of the property. This has been going on for a year now. He is keeping the land and house in an awful condition.

The probate court has validated Mom's will and we are the legal heirs, but he still refuses to give us full access.
He has locked us out of the entire property several times and despite numerous requests still refuses to let us access the house or pay us rent. He calls the sheriff out if he thinks we have been on the property.
We have not changed the title of the property to put our names on.

I believe we have every right to just go out and enter the house, but he may get violent. How do we get full access to our own property without having the sheriff arrest us after he claims we hurt him or stole something?
And how do we get compensated for his exclusive use that he has maintained by force and intimidation?

I have read about forcible detainers, small claims court and going to superior court.
Please help.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My parents were at the end of a divorce when my mother died. Myself and two brothers inherited her one half interest in an 80 acre property she co-owned as tenents in common with her exhusband, our father. Our father lives on the property and refuses to give us access to the home or pay us to have exclusive use of the property. This has been going on for a year now. He is keeping the land and house in an awful condition.

The probate court has validated Mom's will and we are the legal heirs, but he still refuses to give us full access.
He has locked us out of the entire property several times and despite numerous requests still refuses to let us access the house or pay us rent. He calls the sheriff out if he thinks we have been on the property.
We have not changed the title of the property to put our names on.

I believe we have every right to just go out and enter the house, but he may get violent. How do we get full access to our own property without having the sheriff arrest us after he claims we hurt him or stole something?
And how do we get compensated for his exclusive use that he has maintained by force and intimidation?

I have read about forcible detainers, small claims court and going to superior court.
Please help.

**A: why did you not hire your own attorney a year ago?

 

[robo94553]

Your response is not an answer, just a question. Because lawyers are expensive and that is beside the point. Can you offer any help?

 

[tranquility]

First, he has a right to be in the property, so you can forget about your petty-minded attempt at getting rent. If you are the legal heirs, put the property in your name. If he gets the sheriff out when you take possession, sue him for false arrest when you are arrested. But, take title first or you will be properly arrested.

Or, get a lawyer.

Second, being the legal heir does not mean you get the property just because it's in the will that way. Because it's a commnity property state, if the home is community property, mom may not have full rights to give you it. Everything depends on many factors as your attorney must have explained to you. Oh, wait, you don't have one. I suggest you get one to explain to you the complex interactions of your circumstances.

 

[HomeGuru]

Your response is not an answer, just a question. Because lawyers are expensive and that is beside the point. Can you offer any help?

**A: ok, I guess this went right over your head. Since the matter is a probate matter, the attorney would have requested an executor or special adminsitrator to care for the property until such time as the estate was established and probate court case closed.
If you are now the legal heirs as adjuducated by the probate court and further evidenced by a recorded deed showing you on title to the property, then as property owner you would need an attorney to go to court to litigate the matter. Such litigation would include but not be limited to access to the property, repair and maintenace, insurance, real property tax responsibilities etc.
What you fail to understand is that currently you have no rights to the property and can do nothing since the property is not titled to you and the legal entity that owns the property is your father and the estate of your mother. You have no rights to enter the property. The appointed estate executor or administrator does have power to access the property so you may want to make an appointment to see the property with him or her.

 

[robo94553]

Tranquility, your sarcasm in unhelpful. I thought this site was to help people get free legal advice, not just a place for responders to inflate their egos by belittling someone who posts a question. It's not petty minded to seek damages for being excluded from your own property. As I pointed out the property is not community. It was in tenents-in-common status. There is no dispute we are the owners.

 

[tranquility]

Sarcasm help point out the weakness of your position. It is petty minded to seek damages from being excluded from property in which you have not yet performed the basic functions to prove it is your property. Why have you not yet taken title?

The property *IS* most probably community. The titling is not going to prevent the community aspects from coming to the front. Your ignorance of how community property works is obvious. Your rudeness to someone who actually gave you correct legal information is also obvious.

By-the-by regarding the "legal dispute" about ownership, how do you come to that conclusion? Unless there are a lot of facts you are not disclosing, I see no reason why you believe that. Even if you are the rightful heirs of some seperate property, you still have no claim against stepdad. That you claim there is is a bit overreaching.

Which is what the expensive attorney will tell you. (And, you got the advice for FREE. America, what a country.)

 

[HomeGuru]

Tranquility, your sarcasm in unhelpful. I thought this site was to help people get free legal advice, not just a place for responders to inflate their egos by belittling someone who posts a question. It's not petty minded to seek damages for being excluded from your own property. As I pointed out the property is not community. It was in tenents-in-common status. There is no dispute we are the owners.

**A: NO you are not the owners. You have no clue.

 

[HomeGuru]

Tranquility gave you correct advice.

 

[robo94553]

Tranquility and HomeGuru,
I appreciate you monitoring these requests for help. But I think you two should stop dispensing your hack advice to people on this web site. You don't seem capable of reading and understanding simple things and have obviously have no understanding of the law. I said our ownership is not in dispute, but you both contend that we have no ownership rights to the property and that I am clueless. We are the owners and the court has confirmed that fact. You two are clueless.
There is no dispute, legal or otherwise, over our ownership. It is in tenants-in-common status and a preliminary title transfer has been accomplished. Do I need to explain these terms to you two?
My question was about how to get full access without causing an incident and recovering damages (rent). You two are so lame that neither of you addressed my question. Instead you chose to attack me. California law is clear. It states "title to a decedent's property passes on the decedent's death to the person to whom it is devised in the decedent's last will". As legal heirs and now co-owners we have equal rights to unfettered access and possession to the entire property. Our father is guilty of an illegal ouster by excluding us. Should I explain to you what an ouster is? I was trying to find out what an appropriate legal remedy woud be to avoid any physical confrontations. I inquired about a forcible detainer and small claims court. Neither of you addressed these options. Apparently you don't have any understanding of these options.
I contacted an attorney and he validated all our property rights and justification to seek damages from our father.
Maybe you two would be better suited to join Trip Adviser and not dole out useless, uninformed legal advice here!
Tranquility says: "Sarcasm help point out the weakness of your position". PRICELESS!
If you don't have any useful, informed advice to give out then just don't answer someone's post. We are all looking for useful advice, not ego building garbage.

 

[Zigner]

rob -

You can't collect rent.
File a partition suit.

If you don't like the advice, pay a lawyer

 

[>Charlotte<]

You two are clueless.

Wow. And you're accusing them of egoism??

Grow up. You came here to ask people to help you, and then when they try you act like a child who was told he can't have a cookie.

"Why don't you have a lawyer" is a valid question which clarifies whether you can't afford one, or you think you don't need one.

You have been advised by three very knowledgeable people despite your rudeness to them. If you're just going to tell everyone they're wrong when they try to enlighten you, what's the point of coming here?

This site is for legal advice. It's not for telling you just what you want to hear. If you know it all then fine, go take care of it and let this site help people who know how to be gracious.

 

[robo94553]

Thanks for your help.

 

[tranquility]

First, he has a right to be in the property, so you can forget about your petty-minded attempt at getting rent.

What did your attorney say about this? Is it correct or incorrect?

If you are the legal heirs, put the property in your name. If he gets the sheriff out when you take possession, sue him for false arrest when you are arrested. But, take title first or you will be properly arrested.

What did your attorney say about this? Is it correct or incorrect? You have a problem, it is:

We have not changed the title of the property to put our names on.

Does your attorney recommend or not recommend you putting your name on the property? Perhaps, when you write:

It is in tenants-in-common status and a preliminary title transfer has been accomplished.

Yes, you need to explain the term "preliminary title transfer". This is not a legal term in California. If your attorney gave this phrase to you, he is incompetent (or, you are lying) or it is just a descriptive term for things which happen BEFORE TITLE IS TRANSFERRED. Get it? BEFORE TITLE IS TRANSFERRED.

The probate court has validated Mom's will and we are the legal heirs, but he still refuses to give us full access.

Since, from your discription the property is still in the estate, you have NO right of possession. What does your attorney say about that? Is it a correct or incorrect statement? (All this is assuming you are correct about mom having full rights to transfer property. You recognize the difference between before death ownership on title, before death ownership by community property rules and post-death title, right?)

It is petty minded to seek damages from being excluded from property in which you have not yet performed the basic functions to prove it is your property

What does your attorney say about this?

Why have you not yet taken title?

Is there a reason why you have not answered the question? Are you trying to pull something, or are you just lazy, or, do you not have the right to do so yet?

I contacted an attorney and he validated all our property rights and justification to seek damages from our father.

Perhaps. To make sure you are telling the truth, what would the cause of action be? Not what you have said so far, but maybe another one or two. (If there are more facts which you are not telling.) Come on, tell us what your attorney said.

We are all looking for useful advice, not ego building garbage.

Here's the advice for you, who apparently can't read. Take title in form and substance. Then start telling us the facts at that time. By the by, what did your attorney advise regarding the taking of title?

 

[Zigner]

Funny thing is that OP thinks he (et all) owns half of the property in question. I'll betcha it's more like 1/4 of it