Background on the case:I live in my ex boyfriend’s(together 12 yrs.

Background on the case:I live in my ex boyfriend’s(together 12 yrs.) mobile home he moved out Jan. 1 2007 for the last 3 years I have paid all the bills renewed the title fixed everything that broke out of my own pocket. He was arrested in the mobile home park so he can no longer live here. The only reason this mobile home is still here is because I when before the judge after his arrest and got the judge to let me and the unit stay since I didn’t get in any trouble. I’ve spent a lot of time and money to make improvements inside and out on this unit. All bills are up to date. Last week my ex called and told me I had 60 days to move.
My question: is there a way to either take legal ownership of this mobile home or at least stop him from putting me out since he hasn’t paid or done anything in the last 3 years and can’t ever live in this mobile park again per MRL state of Ca. .

3 thoughts on “Background on the case:I live in my ex boyfriend’s(together 12 yrs.

  1. First, was your boyfriend convicted of a crime, or just arrested? If he was just arrested and not convicted of one of the offenses set forth in Cal. Civ. Code §798.56(c), then he can continue living in the park until such time as he is actually convicted of one of a very limited series of offenses. Even assuming he is convicted and can no longer live in the park, he still owns the home, and has the right to sell it or remove it from the park – you do not magically obtain title to it by virtue of having paid the park rent, bills and repairs. There is no process that will allow you to take title from him just because he can no longer live in the park. Paying those bills, and maintaining the home is being done by you voluntarily, and would probably be seen as nothing more than rent for continued use of the home that belongs to him.

    Now, because you have been together for 12 years, there may be other grounds for a claim to have some ownership interest in the home. Persons who cohabitate for a long enough period of time MAY develop some rights in their cohabitant’s property, but that is a question that would have to be answered by a family law attorney, and only after a thorough review of the facts involved. It is impossible to say if you have any right to the home on the basis of having been together that long without a full review of the facts. I would suggest you talk to an attorney in your area who specializes in family law, and more importantly, issues related to unmarried couples and property rights.

    *Due to the limitations of the LawGuru Forums, The Gibbs Law Firm, APC’s (the “Firm”) participation in responding to questions posted herein does not constitute legal advice, nor legal representation of the person or entity posting a question. No Attorney/Client relationship is or shall be construed to be created hereby. The information provided is general and requires that the poster obtain specific legal advice from an attorney. The poster shall not rely upon the information provided herein as legal advice nor as the basis for making any decisions of legal consequence. As required by 11 U.S.C. §528, we must now disclose that, “We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code. Assistance we provide with respect to Debt Relief may involve bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.”

    David Gibbs
    The Gibbs Law Firm, APC
    110 E Avenida Palizada, Ste 201
    San Clemente, CA 92672-3956

  2. I agree with Mr. Gibbs. You don’t acquire ownership by living in and maintaining the mobile home. Even if this were real estate, you would not acquire title by adverse possession because your initial possession was not “adverse,” it was by permission or invitation.

    Bryan Whipple
    Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law
    P O Box 318
    Tomales, CA 94971-0318

  3. I agree with Mr. Gibbs. You don’t acquire ownership by living in and maintaining the mobile home. Even if this were real estate, you would not acquire title by adverse possession because your initial possession was not “adverse,” it was by permission or invitation.

    Bryan Whipple
    Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law
    P O Box 318
    Tomales, CA 94971-0318

Comments are closed.