Affidavit California Joint Tenant: Fill & Download for Free

No, in California you can’t use the same Affidavit of Death of Joint Tenant on teo different properties as the Affidavit references a single property and any change would invalidate any signature, including the Notary. See attached exemplar. https://arcc.sdcounty.ca.gov/Documents/ADJT.pdf

It is always best to consult a tax attorney since every situation is different and the details make the difference. Here a few pros and cons simply stated from an article in the Los Angeles times. 1/11/2014 by Robert J. Bruss1. Sole ownershipIf you are single, one way to hold title to your home is in your name alone. This method is also called ownership in severalty.When a married person takes title to real property in his or her name alone in sole ownership, the spouse is usually asked to sign a quitclaim deed giving up any ownership interest in the property.This might be done, for example, when a husband invests in properties but his wife is not involved with the realty investments.There are no special tax or other advantages of holding title in sole ownership. When the sole owner dies, any property held this way is subject to probate court costs and delays.2. Tenants in commonWhen two or more co-owners take title to real estate, especially if they are not married to each other, they often become tenants in common. For example, two realty investors might select this method.Each tenant in common owns a specified interest in the property. It need not be equal. For example, one owner might own a 50% interest, another could own a 10% interest and a third tenant in common could own a 40% share. The percentage ownership is specified on the deed.A major advantage is that each tenant in common can sell or pass his interest by his will to whomever he or she wishes.For this reason, tenancy in common is especially popular in second marriages, so each spouse can will his or her share to the children from a first marriage. Tenancy in common property is subject to probate court costs and delays.A disadvantage is that the remaining tenant in common could wind up co-owning property with a stranger.Another disadvantage (also true for joint tenancy) is that a tenant in common can bring a partition lawsuit to force a property sale if the other co-owners are unwilling to sell. The court can then order the property sold, with the proceeds split among the co-owners according to their ownership shares.3. Joint tenancy with right of survivorshipWhen title is held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship, all co-owners must take title at the same time; they own equal shares and the surviving co-owner winds up owning the entire property. In some states, when husband and wife use this method, it is called tenancy by the entireties.After a joint tenant dies, the surviving joint tenant(s) receives the deceased's share. The deceased's will has no effect on joint tenancy property.A major advantage is that probate costs and delays are avoided when a joint tenant dies. The surviving joint tenant(s) usually needs only record an affidavit of survivorship and a certified copy of the death certificate to clear the title.However, except for tenancy by the entireties, a major disadvantage is that a joint tenant can sell or give his property interest to a new owner without permission of the other joint tenant(s).If there are only two joint tenants, the joint tenancy is ended by such a conveyance, creating a tenancy in common.4. Community propertyHusbands and wives who acquire realty in the community property states of California, Nevada, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Texas, Arizona, Washington, Idaho and New Mexico can take title as community property. Each spouse then owns half the property, which can be passed by the spouse's will either to the surviving spouse or someone else.A special advantage is that community property assets willed to a surviving spouse receive a new stepped-up basis at market value on the date of death. In 1987, the IRS extended this community property stepped-up basis advantage to husbands and wives holding joint tenancy titles in community property states.To qualify, IRS Revenue Ruling 87-98 requires spouses to acknowledge in writing to each other that their joint tenancy property is also community property.5. Living trustProbably the best way to hold title to homes and other real property is in a revocable living trust. There are many advantages, such as avoidance of probate costs and delays.Other than the modest cost of creating a living trust (usually less than $1,000) and deeding real property into the living trust, there are no disadvantages.Until the death or disability of the trust creator, the home and other real estate in the living trust are treated normally.Stocks, bonds, bank accounts, automobiles and other major assets can also be held in a living trust. Since the living trust is revocable, these assets can be bought, sold and financed normally.If the trustor becomes incompetent, the named alternate trustor (such as a spouse or adult child) takes over management of the trust assets. When the trustor dies, the assets are distributed according to the trust's terms.Privacy is a major advantage. Unlike a will, which becomes part of the public probate file, the living trust terms remain private. For example, late Bing Crosby held virtually all his assets in a living trust and its terms never became public.Still another advantage is that court challenges of living trusts are virtually impossible, whereas will challenges by disappointed relatives occur frequently.SummaryThe five most popular methods of holding residence titles all have their pros and cons. Overall, the best method for most homeowners is the living trust, because of all its advantages.* * *Robert J. Bruss is a syndicated columnist, as well as a real estate investor, lawyer, broker and educator in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Defendant challenged a decision from the Superior Court of Nevada County (California), which convicted him of two counts of grand theft. Defendant was convicted of counts I and III of the information. Count II was dismissed prior to trial.Defendant received a promissory note from the victims, ostensibly, to cover deposits he made to their business account from his own personal finances. Defendant alleged that he wanted the note to prove that the victims owed him money for services he rendered and not for the purpose of negotiating it. Despite this claim, defendant attempted to negotiate the note. As to the second grand theft charge, defendant took a blank check from the business account and deposited it in the amount of $ 300 in a different bank to the credit of one of the victims. Defendant sent the promissory note to a third party. He requestedCalifornia Rules of Court CRC Rule 3.110. Time for service of complaint, cross-complaint, and response - California Business Lawyer & Corporate LawyerBusiness Lawyer Nakase Wade Rule 3.110. Time for service of complaint, cross-complaint, and response (a) Application This rule applies to the service of pleadings in civil cases except for collections cases under rule 3.740(a), unlawful detainer actions, proceedings under the Family Code, and other proceedings for which different service requirements are prescribed by law. (Subd (a) amended effective July 1, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Service of complaint The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint. When the complaint is amended to add a defendant, the added defendant must be served and proof of service must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint. (c) Service of cross-complaint A cross-complaint against a party who has appeared in the action must be accompanied by proof of service of the cross-complaint at the time it is filed. If the cross-complaint adds new parties, the cross-complaint must be served on all parties and proofs of service on the new parties must be filed within 30 days of the filing of the cross-complaint. (d) Timing of responsive pleadings The parties may stipulate without leave of court to one 15-day extension beyond the 30-day time period prescribed for the response after service of the initial complaint. (e) Modification of timing; application for order extending time The court, on its own motion or on the application of a party, may extend or otherwise modify the times provided in (b)-(d). An application for a court order extending the time to serve a pleading must be filed before the time for service has elapsed. The application must be accompanied by a declaration showing why service has not been completed, documenting the efforts that have been made to complete service, and specifying the date by which service is proposed to be completed. (Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (f) Failure to serve If a party fails to serve and file pleadings as required under this rule, and has not obtained an order extending time to serve its pleadings, the court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall not be imposed. (Subd (f) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (g) Request for entry of default If a responsive pleading is not served within the time limits specified in this rule and no extension of time has been granted, the plaintiff must file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service has elapsed. The court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed if the plaintiff fails to timely file the request for the entry of default. (Subd (g) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (h) Default judgment When a default is entered, the party who requested the entry of default must obtain a default judgment against the defaulting party within 45 days after the default was entered, unless the couhttps://california-business-lawyer-corporate-lawyer.com/rules-of-court-crc-california/california-rules-of-court-crc-rule-3-110-time-for-service-of-complaint-cross-complaint-and-response/that the third party hold the note until such time as he requested its return. The court found that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the written and oral testimony of the instructions given to the third party. Based on this evidence, the court was doubtful of defendant's guilt. It was also an error to not admit the victims' letter guaranteeing a note for attorneys' fees for defendant in his defense of another action in Las Vegas. Finally, the prosecutor improperly interrogated a witness before the jury in the absence of defendant and his counsel.The court reversed defendant's conviction.Petitioner joint tenant filed a petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or other appropriate relief to set aside an order of respondent, the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which granted relief from default under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) to real parties in interest, owners, on the basis of an affidavit of fault signed by a Portuguese attorney.The joint tenant claimed an undivided half interest in the owners' investment property in California and sought to partition the sale. When the owners, who were residents of Portugal, failed to answer the complaint, the joint tenant took their default and then obtained a default judgment. The owners filed a motion to set aside the defaults and default judgment. In support of the motion, the owners filed a declaration of fault, in which the attorney declared that he was an attorney licensed to practice law in Portugal, he had prepared a response denying the allegations of the complaint and mailed it to the superior court, he never received further instructions, and entry of default was the result of his mistake, inadvertence, and neglect. The court held that the superior court correctly concluded that the owners' Portugese lawyer was an "attorney" whose affidavit of fault entitled his clients to relief under § 473(b). Although the word "attorney" was not defined within the statute, the term "attorney" was generally used to refer to any professional attorney at law, licensed to practice law in some jurisdiction. No authority suggested any implication of California licensure.The court denied the petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or other appropriate relief