There is no case law supporting your direct question. There is only the equitable defense of "clean hands."
"Of rents thus received, the jurisdiction of equity
to direct an account, as an incident to a partition, is unquestionable. From these rents the defendant is entitled to deduct the amount of the taxes paid, and of the expenses incurred in making necessary and proper repairs and additions, for the preservation and security of the buildings, during the period for which the rents were collected. He is also entitled to reasonable allowances, to be deducted from the rents, for the use of his individual property, when such use was required in order to let the premises themselves. It is not probable that he could have let the theater rooms, from time to time, as different theatrical companies required them, without, at the same time, letting the carpets, lamps, and scenery; and as these constituted his individual property, a reasonable allowance for them should be deducted from the rents received. But he is not entitled to allowances for the use of any individual property in connection with the premises not thus required, nor to any allowances for his personal services in taking charge of the building, renting the same, and collecting the rents." Goodenow v. Ewer, 16 Cal. 461 (Cal. 1860) [yes, 1860
The family court order to sell the property and distribute the proceeds between spouses was the equivalent of a partition order. Based upon the above-quoted case-law precedent, your ex has a valid claim in equity against the rent received from the property lease(s) after deducting your actual expenses.
However, in order to obtain the above result, (1) the plaintiff must plead for an equitable accounting, rather than for breach of contract, a common count (e.g., money had an received), or some other "at law" action (Pico v. Columbet, 12 Cal. 414 (Cal. 1859)); and (2) the plaintiff must come to court with "clean hands." Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole, 83 Cal. App. 4th 436 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2000) ("Unclean hands...requires inequitable conduct by the plaintiff in connection with the matter in controversy and provides a complete defense to the plaintiff's action.").
So, if you can show that ex convinced the tenant to stop paying as a means of forcing you out of the property, then that could operate as a clean hands defense to owing him a net portion of the rent.
However, the bankruptcy court owns your 50% tenancy in common interest in the property, and one half of the net rents after expenses, whatever that net may be. So, even if you succeed against your ex, you're not out of the woods re the bankruptcy trustee.
Hope this helps.
And, if you need to contact me again, please put my user id on the title line of your question (“ToCustomerrdquo;), and the system will send me an alert. Thanks!