Conley v. Sharpe

19 Citing cases

  1. Sierra v. Hoskins

    No. C 11-03630 CRB (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2011)

    See 7/7 BR Order at 1-2. Under California law, a co-tenant who pays more than his or her share of the common expenses of the property may recover the overpayment from the other co-tenants. Conley v. Sharpe, 136 P.2d 376, 381-82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943). The overpaying co-tenant is entitled to a lien against the interests of the noncontributing co-tenants, see id. at 382, but the co-tenant is "not entitled to a personal judgment in the absence of an agreement to the contrary."

  2. Smith v. Anderson

    67 Cal.2d 635 (Cal. 1967)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Accordingly, a person who owns an undivided interest in the property is not such an owner of all the undivided parts of the parcel. [5] Another contention made by respondents is that because the payment of property taxes by one cotenant inures to the benefit of the remaining cotenants and discharges the tax lien against the entire parcel as assessed ( Willmon v. Koyer, 168 Cal. 369, 374 [ 143 P. 694, L.R.A. 1915B 961]; Conley v. Sharpe, 58 Cal.App.2d 145, 155-156 [ 136 P.2d 376]), if appellants, as owners of undivided interests in tax-sold or tax-deeded property, paid that portion of the delinquent taxes which their respective interests in the property bore to the entire property, these payments would have to be credited to the benefit of all the cotenants. The cases upon which respondents rely for the principle that the payment of taxes by one cotenant inures to the benefit of the remaining cotenants all involve situations where the property which is owned by several persons as cotenants is assessed as a unit.

  3. Knox v. Knox

    No. A129467 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2011)

    Once the court determined that Kati had โ€œpaid a debt or obligation for the benefit of the joint property, โ€ the court was within its discretion to direct Robert to contribute his proportionate share of those expenses as a cotenant. (Conley v. Sharpe (1943)58 Cal.App.2d 145, 155; see alsoJamison v. Cotton (1933) 136 Cal.App. 127, 131 [regardless of โ€œwhat gave riseโ€ to payment of expenses, the defaulting cotenant received the benefit and plaintiff cotenant had the โ€œcorresponding right to recoveryโ€].) III.

  4. Schoenfeld v. Norberg

    11 Cal.App.3d 755 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Schoenfeld, a judgment creditor of the husband sought to levy execution upon a homestead which was owned jointly by both husband and wife, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Sections 1245 et seq. of the California Civil Code. Under this procedure a judgment creditor may apply to the Superior Court of the county in which the homestead is situated for the appointment of appraisers; and if the value of the property exceeds the amount of the homestead exemption plus the aggregate amount of all liens and encumbrances on the property, the property must be sold.

    The purchaser, having in effect paid off the entire encumbrance, would be entitled to contribution from the other tenant or tenants (in this case the wife). ( Conley v. Sharpe (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 145, 155-156 [ 136 P.2d 376]; Jamison v. Cotton (1933) 136 Cal.App. 127, 129 [ 28 P.2d 39].) We recognize that under the procedure we have outlined severe limitations are placed on the situations in which a sale of property held in cotenancy between the judgment debtor-homestead claimant and another party could be ordered.

  5. Marsh v. Edelstein

    9 Cal.App.3d 132 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 13 times
    In Marsh v. Edelstein (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 132 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 26], the appellate court held equity does not have the power to disregard or set aside the express terms of legislation: "While equitable relief is flexible and expanding, its power cannot be intruded in matters that are plain and fully covered by positive statute, nor will a court of equity lend its aid to accomplish by indirection what the law or its clearly defined policy forbids to be done directly."

    ( Jamison v. Cotton, 136 Cal.App. 127, 130 [ 28 P.2d 39].) (7) While a probate court has no general equity jurisdiction, it has the power to apply equitable and legal principles in aid of its functions as a probate court. ( Security First Nat. Bank v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.2d 749, 757 [ 37 P.2d 69].) It follows from this that if appellant Marsh is determined to be an heir, in the heirship proceedings in the probate court, entitled to an interest in the land as a tenant in common with other heirs or transferees of heirs of Ella S. Stoddard, deceased, and if it is determined in such proceeding that he has paid more than his share of the taxes assessed against the land for the protection of the entire property, he will be entitled to judgment against his cotenants, and to a lien on the property in an amount equal to his cotenants proportionate share of the taxes so paid. ( Conley v. Sharpe, 58 Cal.App.2d 145, 155, 156 [ 136 P.2d 376]; Southern Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Nelson, 230 Cal.App.2d 539, 541 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 148].) Thus, in the heirship proceedings in the probate court, appellant Marsh, upon proper proof, will be entitled to the relief which he seeks here.

  6. Williams v. Williams

    8 Cal.App.3d 636 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 51 times
    In Williams v. Williams, 8 Cal.App.3d 636, 640 (1970), the California Court of Appeal held that child support arrearages could not be offset by a debt owed by the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent.

    We observe here that the effect of the court's ruling is not a declaration that defendant is not entitled to reimbursement for unilateral expenditures made on commonly held property under principles which permit a coowner to recover for such expenditures against the other coowner. (See Conley v. Sharpe, 58 Cal.App.2d 145, 154-156 [ 136 P.2d 376]; Southern Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Nelson, 230 Cal.App.2d 539, 541 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 148]; Combs v. Ritter, 100 Cal.App.2d 315, 320 [ 223 P.2d 505]; Higgins v. Eva, 204 Cal. 231, 238 [ 267 P. 1081]; Mercola v. Chester, 97 Cal.App.2d 140, 143 [ 217 P.2d 32].) Nor is it a holding that such offset in a proper case may not be urged under Code of Civil Procedure section 440 (See Hauger v. Gates, 42 Cal.2d 752, 755 [ 269 P.2d 609].)

  7. Southern Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Nelson

    230 Cal.App.2d 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 9 times

    The original interlocutory judgment was correct. This principle is established in Willmon v. Koyer, 168 Cal. 369 [ 143 P. 694, L.R.A. 1915B 961]; Garcia v. Venegas, 106 Cal.App.2d 364, 369 [ 235 P.2d 89]; see also Rich v. Smith, 26 Cal.App. 775, 784 [ 148 P. 545]; Conley v. Sharpe, 58 Cal.App.2d 145 [ 136 P.2d 376]; Palpar, Inc. v. Thayer, 115 Cal.App.2d 333 [ 252 P.2d 51]. The judgment is reversed with directions to the trial court to enter judgment to conform with this opinion.

  8. Ampuero v. Luce

    68 Cal.App.2d 811 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)   Cited 15 times
    In Ampuero v. Luce, 68 Cal.App.2d 811, 819, 157 P.2d 899, 903, this court said: 'No evidence whatever is pointed out to show such relation beyond the fact that they had been close friends since girlhood, had corresponded, visited back and forth, and Mrs. Ampuero considered the respondent the most reliable friend she had.

    ( Schott v. Schott, 168 Cal. 342, supra; Lavely v. Nonemaker, 212 Cal. 380, supra. See, also, Conley v. Sharpe, 58 Cal.App.2d 145 [ 136 P.2d 376], and Dalbkermeyer v. Rader, 96 Cal.App. 23 [ 273 P. 600].)

  9. Sanger v. Ahe Ahn

    Case No. 18-cv-07204-JCS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2019)

    The purchaser, having in effect paid off the entire encumbrance, would be entitled to contribution from the other tenant or tenants (in this case the wife). (Conley v. Sharpe (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 145, 155-156; Jamison v. Cotton (1933) 136 Cal.App. 127, 129.). . . Under the facts which have been determined in this case, the property cannot be sold if it is held in joint tenancy; the husband's interest does not exceed the sum of the joint encumbrance and the homestead exemption.

  10. Ahn v. Sanger (In re Ahn)

    BAP No. NC-16-1421-BJuF (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2017)

    When such payments are made by one cotenant for the benefit of the property, that cotenant is entitled to a lien against the interests of those cotenants who do not contribute their share. In re Fazzio, 180 B.R. at 269; Higgins v. Eva, 204 Cal. 231, 238 (1928); Conley v. Sharpe, 58 Cal. App. 2d 145, 156 (1943); Miller & Starr at ยง 11.10 ("The cotenant who pays the common expenses is entitled to a lien against the interests of the noncontributing cotenants that may be enforced by foreclosure against their interests in the property[.]"). Thus, even without the judgment lien which may or may not be valid depending on the outcome of the Sangers' appeal, the Amended TIC Agreement and California law provided the Sangers with a lien against Ahn's interest in the Property as a matter of law due to the Shared Mortgage payments they made, and continue to make, on her behalf.