A bitter dispute over property ownership between former romantic partners has culminated in a court ruling affirming equal ownership. The complaint, filed by Mark E. King in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District on July 30, 2024, against Corinne Lalanne, sought to partition and sell jointly owned real estate.
King alleged that he and Lalanne had agreed to purchase the property as equal owners with Lalanne's father making the down payment and King covering necessary remodeling costs. Despite King's claim to a 50 percent interest based on this agreement, Lalanne argued that King only held a 25 percent interest according to the recorded deeds. Following a bench trial, the court sided with King, ordering an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale with both parties holding equal shares.
Lalanne appealed the decision on three grounds: questioning the trial court's authority to resolve contract-based claims within a partition action; asserting that record title gave King only a 25 percent interest which he failed to disprove; and claiming any potential rights King might have had were barred by the statute of frauds. However, these arguments did not sway the appellate court.
The factual background revealed that in 2014, title was initially recorded as “Corinne Lalanne an unmarried woman and [father], as joint tenants.” In April 2016, Lalanne’s father deeded his 50 percent interest to “Corinne Lalanne and Mark E. King, Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship.” After her father's death in 2017, disputes arose regarding King's actual share in the property. During trial testimony, King detailed his contributions towards property improvements and shared household expenses as evidence of his half-ownership claim. Conversely, Lalanne denied any such agreement existed.
The trial court found King's testimony credible and determined there was clear and convincing evidence rebutting the presumption set forth in the deeds. The judgment concluded that both parties were joint tenants with equal ownership interests based on their prior agreement before purchasing the property.
In her appeal, Lalanne contended that Evidence Code section 662 presumption of title could not be overcome without clear evidence of an alternative agreement or understanding. She also argued that any oral agreements should be void under the statute of frauds since they lacked written documentation required for real estate transactions. Nevertheless, the appellate court upheld King's position citing equitable doctrines like part performance and equitable estoppel which allow enforcement of oral agreements when substantial changes are made in reliance on them.
Ultimately seeking affirmation from higher courts for what he believes is rightfully his due to significant personal investment and labor into their shared home, King requested costs on appeal which were granted by Judge Mesiwala along with concurring judges Renner (Acting P.J.) and Boulware Eurie (J.).