California Evidence Code 662 Requires Clear and Convincing Evidence of Real Property Ownership Contrary to Record Title

California Evidence Code Section 662 Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard in Partition and Quiet Title Ownership Disputes

California Evidence Code Section 662 is a fundamental rule of California real estate law that prevents record owners from being subjected to meritless claims by others claiming to be the equitable owner.

“According to the ‘form of title’ presumption, the description in a deed as to how title is held is presumed to reflect the actual ownership interests in the property.” Carne v. Worthington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 548, 556 (quoting In re Marriage of Brooks & Robinson (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 176, 184–185, abrogated on another ground in In re Marriage of Valli (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1396).

This fundamental rule of California real estate is codified as Evidence Code section 662, which provides that: “The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof.”

Section 662 applies “when there is no dispute as to where legal title resides but there is question as to where all or part of the beneficial title should rest.” Coyne v. De Leo (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 801, 819 (quoting Murray v. Murray (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1067). “Section 662 applies to allegations that a party has beneficial rights to property pursuant to an oral agreement, even if title is not in their name.” DeMartini v. DeMartini, No. 214CV02722JAMCKD, 2018 WL 2102350, at *6 (E.D. Cal., May 4, 2018) (unpublished federal district court order). The DeMartini court cited to California law providing that Section 662 applies where the “issue at trial was whether the parties had entered into an oral agreement that they were purchasing the property as equal partners.” Murray v. Murray (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1067. Thus, a plaintiff who sought a 50 percent interest in property based on an implied agreement between unmarried partners, which “if proven, would rebut the presumption that the defendants, as owners of legal title, were also the full beneficial owners,” was “required to establish her claim by clear and convincing evidence.” Tannehill v. Finch (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 224, 228.

The form of title “presumption cannot be overcome solely by tracing the funds used to purchase the property.” In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 496.

“[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized [the clear and convincing evidence standard] as requiring evidence which is ‘clear, explicit, and unequivocal,’ ‘so clear as to leave no substantial doubt’ and ‘sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.’” In re Marriage of Weaver (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 478, 487, footnote 8 (applying Evidence Code section 662)^[1]See People v. Caruso (1968) 68 Cal.2d 183, 190 (“The phrase ‘clear and convincing evidence’ has been defined as ‘clear, explicit, and unequivocal,’ ‘so clear as to leave no substantial … Continue reading

“A fee simple title is presumed to be intended to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended.” Civil Code section 1105.

As the Supreme Court has explained, Evidence Code “Section 662 thus codifies the common law rule . . . that oral trusts in derogation of title are disfavored and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.” People v. Semaan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 79, 88.

What this means is that record owners of property in California should not be scared by those making claims to their real estate. However, equitable owners who can overcome this presumption by clear and convincing evidence should not hesitate to consider their options. For a plain-language explanation of the standard, see what clear and convincing evidence means in California law.

Whether you hold record title under a grant deed, quitclaim deed, or another recorded instrument, or you have evidence that the true ownership differs from record title, contact a quiet title attorney or partition attorney in California today to discuss your options for protecting or establishing your rightful claim to the property.

Talkov Law can help. With 12 full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 650 partition actions throughout California, our team handles every step of the process, from filing through the referee’s sale and the final distribution of proceeds. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.