KyleW
Member
- Jurisdiction
- California
Hello,
In approximately 2021, my sister and her "baby daddy" purchased a home to raise their family.
Without going into personal details, I assume you already guessed what happened next.
My sister, after having their son, turned into a homemaker, while her partner was the "bread maker". Allegedly, this agreement was a verbal one. Meaning: she stays home and he works. I only add this because it is important to the story of where we are today.
Currently, he is trying to sell the house (not an issue), but the issue my sister has with the selling of the house is she does not want his mother to be the one selling it. His mother was their agent when purchasing the house, and come to find out any fees/commissions that she earned, went to him, including anything she paid out of pocket. Again, that wasn't a biggie but now, he only wants his mother to be the one that sells that house.
She has agreed to that only IF: he pays all fees, or, they find another agent that is for lack of a better term "neutral".
Now, fast forward to earlier this month, he has started a partition case in the Superior Court and is telling her that he is going after her for his down payment on the house, and any house payment made while he has not been there.
If I read right, the only thing he is entitled to, is the sell of the house, and 50% or the profit or burden if there is no profit. Would that statement be accurate? I know in California, you may sue for almost anything, but due to the nature of their deed/title, he would be upstream without a paddle?
I would also like to add, my sister is looking into her own lawyer, but we are just trying to feel out what if anything of my sister's "assets" he would be entitled too, or what we are actually looking at regarding litigation.
In approximately 2021, my sister and her "baby daddy" purchased a home to raise their family.
Without going into personal details, I assume you already guessed what happened next.
My sister, after having their son, turned into a homemaker, while her partner was the "bread maker". Allegedly, this agreement was a verbal one. Meaning: she stays home and he works. I only add this because it is important to the story of where we are today.
Currently, he is trying to sell the house (not an issue), but the issue my sister has with the selling of the house is she does not want his mother to be the one selling it. His mother was their agent when purchasing the house, and come to find out any fees/commissions that she earned, went to him, including anything she paid out of pocket. Again, that wasn't a biggie but now, he only wants his mother to be the one that sells that house.
She has agreed to that only IF: he pays all fees, or, they find another agent that is for lack of a better term "neutral".
Now, fast forward to earlier this month, he has started a partition case in the Superior Court and is telling her that he is going after her for his down payment on the house, and any house payment made while he has not been there.
If I read right, the only thing he is entitled to, is the sell of the house, and 50% or the profit or burden if there is no profit. Would that statement be accurate? I know in California, you may sue for almost anything, but due to the nature of their deed/title, he would be upstream without a paddle?
I would also like to add, my sister is looking into her own lawyer, but we are just trying to feel out what if anything of my sister's "assets" he would be entitled too, or what we are actually looking at regarding litigation.