Question Author
@scotman
Really? That seems unfair, as there is no suspicion that the tenant did it for any other reason that being misled by the bad co-owner. Surely the remedy would be for a judge to order the bad co-owner to pay the 'good' co-owner money that is rightfully that of the good co-owner?
Usually contract law is very fair and common-sense; I don't see it as fair to pursue someone who no longer has the money and paid it in good faith to someone who misled him. But if that's the law, that's the law, I suppose.