Dmoz Directory the #1 Web Directory & Internet Directory online.

Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

Home Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

Rated: 2.25 / 5 | 2,027 listing views Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy Dmoz Directory Web Directory

united-states

 

General Audience

  • 951-888-3300
  • Scott Talkov
  • May 13, 2020 08:30:47 PM
SHARE THIS PAGE ON:

A Little About Us

Real estate, business and bankruptcy law in California. Call for a free consultation. 951-888-3300.

Listing Details

  • Website Language:
  • Google Pagerank:
  • Website Tags:

Listing Statistics

Add ReviewMe Button

Review Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy at Dmoz Directory Web Directory

Add SEO Score Button

My Dmoz Directory Web Directory Score

Google Adsense™ Share Program

Alexa Web Ranking: 439,669

Alexa Ranking - Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

Advertising for Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

This what your Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy website listing Ad will look like to visitors! Of course you will want to use keywords and ad targeting to get the most out of your ad campaign! So purchase an ad space today before there all gone!

https://www.dmoz-directory.com

.

notice: Total Ad Spaces Available: (2) ad spaces remaining of (2)

Advertise Here?

  • Website listing specific ad placement
  • Customize the title link
  • Place a detailed description
  • It appears here within the content
  • Approved within 24 hours!
  • 100% Satisfaction
  • Or 3 months absolutely free;
  • No questions asked!

Subscribe to Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

Evicting a Sibling from an Inherited House

Inheriting a Home with Siblings It is extremely common for family members to pass down real estate to younger generations. Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members may choose to leave their valuable real estate assets to family members they know and love. Commonly, siblings inherit a home together from a deceased parent. But ... Read...

Evicting a Sibling from an Inherited House Real Estate AttorneyEvicting a Sibling from an Inherited House Real Estate Attorney

Inheriting a Home with Siblings

It is extremely common for family members to pass down real estate to younger generations. Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members may choose to leave their valuable real estate assets to family members they know and love. Commonly, siblings inherit a home together from a deceased parent. But just because siblings are now co-owners of a property together doesn’t mean that they will always agree on what to do with the property after the death of their parents.

Sister or Brother is Living Rent Free in Your Inherited Home

Perhaps your sister is living rent free in your inherited home, or maybe your brother won’t move out of your deceased parents’ house. Or maybe one sibling wants to live in the family home, another wants to rent it out to a third party, and a third wants to sell it.

Frequently, the sibling lived in the inherited house before their parent passed away, sometimes because that sibling care for the parent in their final years of life. Perhaps the sibling living in the inherited house believes that mom or dad intended them to be able to live in the house for the rest of their life, as well. Generally, the trust or will makes no mention of such a life estate for the sibling living in the inherited house.

Further complicating matters, often times, the sibling living in the inherited house has made this property their personal residence for many years such that they have no plans of moving elsewhere. Perhaps the family home is in an area or is of a quality that would be unaffordable to the sibling who is living there if they had to buy it on their own. In other words, if they were required to live within their own means, they would not be able to afford the family home.

In California, the only way to equitably divide each co-owner’s interest in the property is to force the sale of the property through what is known as a partition action.

Can I Evict a Sibling from our Deceased Parents’ Home?

As co-owners of a property, you cannot evict a rightful co-owner. Indeed, “Each tenant in common equally is entitled to share in the possession of the entire property and neither may exclude the other from any part of it.” [1] Zaslow v. Kroenert (1946) 29 Cal. 2d 541, 548. The unlawful exclusion of a co-owner from a jointly owned property is known as ouster.

In fact, co-owners generally cannot evict other unwanted house guests who may otherwise be a tenant-at-will. As one court explained, “a single cotenant [i.e., co-owner] may confer occupancy rights upon a third person.”[2]Miller & Starr, Right to lease or license to a third person, 4 Cal. Real Est. (4th ed.) § 11:3 (citing Atlantic Oil Co. v. Los Angeles County (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 585, 602) This means that your siblings family members can stay at the property unless you take action.

How to Evict Siblings from an Inherited Property with Multiple Owners

While co-owners have limited rights outside of court, they can force the sale of inherited property by initiating a court-ordered division of the property known as a partition action. In California, the “right to partition is absolute,” [3]Priddel v. Shankie (1945) 69 Cal.App. 2d 319, 325. meaning that any co-owner with any equity in the property may force the sale of the property through a partition action.

After a partition action is filed, anyone residing on the property will be removed in connection with the property being sold. So, while you cannot “evict” a beneficiary living in an inherited house through an unlawful detainer action (also known as an eviction), it is possible to accomplish the same result to have the sibling and anyone else living there removed from the property in connection with selling the inherited house.

How Do I Remove my Sibling from the Inherited Property so It Can be Sold?

Once a partition action has commenced, a partition referee will be assigned to market and sell the property. The partition referee is a neutral third party whose fiduciary duty is to protect the interests of the co-owners of the property. To best ensure that all parties receive their equitable portion of the sale of the property, a partition referee may hire professionals to repair or maintain the property. Most importantly, the partition referee can be empowered to change the locks and remove your sibling and any other current residents from your parents’ house as part of the sale.

How Can a Partition be Used to Evict My Sibling from the Inherited Home?

This partition referee’s authority to evict a sibling from an inherited home gnerally arises under the court’s ability to “make any decrees and orders necessary or incidental to carrying out the purposes of this title and to effectuating its decrees and orders.”[4]California Code of Civil Procedure 872.120 It also arises from the court’s right to “issue temporary restraining orders and injunctions…for the purpose of… Preventing waste” or “Restraining unlawful interference with a partition of the property ordered by the court.”[5]California Code of Civil Procedure 872.130 In other words, if your sibling is refusing to cooperate with the orderly sale of the property in a partition, the court can empower the referee to ensure compliance by removing them from the property. As a practical matter, once the partition judgment empowers the referee to take such actions, the sibling in possession usually sees the wisdom of cooperation.

In other words, a partition referee will take care of accomplishing the same result as an eviction by removing the uncooperative sibling and make sure the property is in tip top shape to be sold so you receive your maximum equitable portion of the proceeds of sale. You may even recover attorney’s fees, costs, offsets, reimbursements, and credits through the accounting process of a partition action, especially if your sibling is uncooperative. Luckily, eviction after death of an owner is possible by forcing the sale of the property through a partition action.

Partitions Against Siblings are Extremely Common

If you have inherited a family home with a sibling who refuses to sell, perhaps because they are living in the inherited home without paying rent, understand that you are not alone. This common method of estate planning of leaving the family home to each of the siblings equally often results in conflicts between the siblings. Those conflicts are only further exacerbated by dysfunctional interfamily relationships, prior family disagreements, and the lack of a parent to keep order among the family.

Co-owning a house with a sibling comes with its own challenges. Indeed, perhaps the sibling feels entitled to certain rights in the house or offsets from the sale because of matters having nothing to do with the family home, or because of their personal financial situation.

Ultimately, many siblings who inherit a family home conclude that they would never have voluntarily become co-owners of a house with their siblings, and that they must now act to end the involuntary co-ownership. Accordingly, by filing a partition action, the siblings unlock the equity that their parents left to enrich their lives, not just the life of the sibling living in the inherited home.

Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.

References

References
1 Zaslow v. Kroenert (1946) 29 Cal. 2d 541, 548.
2 Miller & Starr, Right to lease or license to a third person, 4 Cal. Real Est. (4th ed.) § 11:3 (citing Atlantic Oil Co. v. Los Angeles County (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 585, 602)
3 Priddel v. Shankie (1945) 69 Cal.App. 2d 319, 325.
4 California Code of Civil Procedure 872.120
5 California Code of Civil Procedure 872.130


Partition by Appraisal in California

How Does Partition by Appraisal Work in California law? A partition action in California is a court-ordered process to bring an end to co-ownership disputes by dividing real estate equitably among co-owners. California law allows for three manners of partition: partition by sale, partition in kind, and partition by appraisal. While partition by sale is ... Read...

Partition by Appraisal Partition Attorney Real Estate LawyerPartition by Appraisal Partition Attorney Real Estate Lawyer

How Does Partition by Appraisal Work in California law?

A partition action in California is a court-ordered process to bring an end to co-ownership disputes by dividing real estate equitably among co-owners. California law allows for three manners of partition: partition by sale, partition in kind, and partition by appraisal. While partition by sale is by far the most common manner of partition, California partition statutes allows for the rarely-used method of partition by appraisal. A partition by appraisal is described as “An alternative to a division or sale of the property . . . under which one or more parties acquires the interests of the others at their appraised value.” [1]Partition by Appraisal., (2021) 12 Witkin, Summary 11th Real Prop § 81

The text of California Code of Civil Procedure 873.910 provides that: “When the interests of all parties are undisputed or have been adjudicated, the parties may agree upon a partition by appraisal pursuant to this chapter.”

Partition by Appraisal Requires the Consent of All Co-Owners

Parties seeking to oppose a partition by sale may urge the court to order a partition by appraisal. However, such a request is improper absent agreement of the parties to partition by appraisal. As the 1976 Law Revision Comment to this section explains that: “The purpose of this chapter is to provide an alternative method of partition for coowners who agree to use this method.” Indeed, this manner of partition is strictly reserved for those co-owners who explicitly agree to a partition by appraisal.

From a practical standpoint, the partition by appraisal statutory scheme is rarely used as reflected by the lack of case law interpreting the partition by appraisal statutes. This is presumably because it requires all parties to agree on who will be the buyer and the use of an appraiser. If these co-owners are willing to work together to agree to a partition by appraisal, it is unclear why the parties would need judicial oversight. Indeed, there is nothing that prevents parties from simply hiring an appraiser and deciding a buyout price without filing a partition action.

Partition by appraisal would generally occur when both parties agree that one or more of the co-owners can remain as owner(s) of the property and agrees to buy out the other co-owner(s). These other co-owner(s) must agree to have their interests bought out of the jointly owned property or else a partition by appraisal is not applicable.

Partitions by Appraisal are Rare in California

However, most partitions are filed because the parties are not in agreement. Sometimes, this is because one or more of the co-owners have taken an unreasonable position. In response, the party filing the partition against a co-owner that wishes to buy the property gains an advantage by forcing the sale. Through that forced sale, it is possible that another buyer will show up to pay more for the property, perhaps more than the other co-owner can pay or will pay. This uncertainty often leads to settlements that are fair and equitable to the co-owner who files the partition.

In other words, co-owners generally select a partition by sale, absent the rare situations usually involving vacant land where partition in kind is more appropriate. However, if you have a tenant in common (TIC) agreement or other document that allows for partition by appraisal, this may be a viable option.

Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.

References

References
1 Partition by Appraisal., (2021) 12 Witkin, Summary 11th Real Prop § 81


Summers v. Superior Court (2018) Ownership Interests Determined Before Partition Judgment Entered

In the world of partition actions in California, lawyers have misunderstood the California Court of Appeal opinion in Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 138 as meaning that the interests of parties in the proceeds of sale must be determined before the court can enter an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale. In ... Read...

Summers v. Superior Court (2018) Ownership Interests Determined Before Partition Judgment EnteredSummers v. Superior Court (2018) Ownership Interests Determined Before Partition Judgment Entered

In the world of partition actions in California, lawyers have misunderstood the California Court of Appeal opinion in Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 138 as meaning that the interests of parties in the proceeds of sale must be determined before the court can enter an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale. In reality, Summers v. Superior Court merely found that the ownership interests of the parties in the property must be determined, e.g., that the parties each own a 50% interest in the property, before a partition judgment can be entered.

Specifically, California Code of Civil Procedure 872.720(a) is the California partition statute that allows the court to enter an interlocutory judgment of partition, thereby finding that a partition will be entered in the case. The statute provides that:

If the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to partition, it shall make an interlocutory judgment that determines the interests of the parties in the property and orders the partition of the property and, unless it is to be later determined, the manner of partition.

Partition attorneys seeking to avoid the ruling that a partition judgment should be entered may try to quote only the following sentence in Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 138, 143: “The trial court’s ruling here failed to satisfy these elements because it ordered the property to be sold before the parties’ interests were resolved.” In turn, defendants in a partition action may mistakenly argue that “the interests of the parties in the property” that must be determined means the interests of the parties to any accounting claims of offset in a partition action. Indeed, almost every partition can include some type of claim of offset.

In reality, the phrase is in reference to the“ownership interests” of the parties. Indeed, this is made clear in Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 138, 143, which later “conclude[d] that the trial court lacked the authority to order the sale of the property before it determined the parties’ respective ownership interests.” in fact, Summers explained “the statute’s plain requirement that the parties’ ownership interests be determined before or when the manner of partition is decided.”

In case this isn’t clear enough, Summers followed Stoffer v. Verhellen (1925) 195 Cal. 317, 318, where “[t]he plaintiff alleged ownership, as tenant in common with the defendant, of an undivided half interest in the property, with like interest in the defendant.” In Stoffer, “the defendant…den[ied] that the plaintiff had any interest in the property.” The Stoffer court concluded that, where “[t]he interlocutory decree entered in this case is entirely silent as to the quantity of interest of either of the parties to the proceedings, [it] is erroneous in that respect.”

In fact, a 2019 case explained this exact meaning of Summers as follows:

“Interests,” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 872.720, refers to ownership interests. Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 138, 140, 143-144.

Green v. Green-Jordan (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2019) No. E070721, 2019 WL 4233918, at *6 (unpublished).

Plaintiffs in partition actions must enforce their right to partition through skilled lawyering to ensure that courts correctly understand when a court may proceed to end the co-ownership relationship.

Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.


Can I Collect Rental Value from my Co-Owner in a Partition Action?

It has been well established that co-owners do not forfeit co-ownership rights if they have moved out of a jointly owned property. However, issues can still arise quickly in a partition action when a co-owner in possession (the co-owner who resides at or primarily manages a property) feels that the co-owner out of possession (the ... Read...

Co-owner out of possession collect rent from co-owner in possession partion lawyer real estate attorneyCo-owner out of possession collect rent from co-owner in possession partion lawyer real estate attorney

It has been well established that co-owners do not forfeit co-ownership rights if they have moved out of a jointly owned property. However, issues can still arise quickly in a partition action when a co-owner in possession (the co-owner who resides at or primarily manages a property) feels that the co-owner out of possession (the co-owner of a property who resides elsewhere) is disproportionately benefitting from their portion of ownership in the property.

A common example is when a tenant-in-possession pays for all repairs and maintenance on a jointly owned property but the tenant out of possession believes that they should receive their percentage of the rental value of the property. This often arises when the last surviving parent leaves the family home to each of the siblings equally, but the sibling who cared for the parent before they passed decides to stay at the house without any paying rental value to the other siblings. Indeed, had the property been rented out, all co-owners would generally share in the rental income based on their percentage interest in the property.

The dedicated partition attorneys at Talkov Law have experience achieving the best result when issues arise over the rental value claimed against tenants-in-possession.

Can a co-owner out of possession collect rental value or mortgage payments from the tenant in possession of co-owned property?

California Code of Civil Procedure 872.140 states that “The court may, in all cases, order allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustment among the parties according to the principles of equity.” Issues can arise quickly when co-owners in the midst of a partition action disagree on reimbursements for improvements to the property, the rental value, mortgage payments, and other costs associated with the upkeep or maintenance of the property.

Generally, “[t]he rule is that when one tenant in common has paid a debt or obligation for the benefit of the joint property . . . he is entitled as a matter of right to have his cotenant, who has received the benefit of it, refund to him his proportionate share of the amount paid.” [1]Conley v. Sharpe, (1943) 58 Cal. App. 2d 145, 155–56. However, with the exception of an ouster, “a cotenant out of possession has no right to recover the rental value of the property from a cotenant in possession.” [2]Estate of Hughes v. Ben G. Patton, (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1607, 1611.

“While we are in accord with defendant as to the settled rule that, in the absence of agreement between them, one tenant cannot maintain an action against his cotenant in exclusive possession to recover rent for the latter’s occupancy of the property . . . ‘The later cases amply show that when, in a suit for partition or a sale for division, or other proceeding between cotenants in equity or in which equitable powers may be exerted, a cotenant who has been in possession or use of the premises seeks to obtain contribution respecting improvements made, or amounts expended in protection or preservation of the property, the court, as incidental to the granting of such relief and by way of adjusting the rights of the parties, may charge the claimant, defensively, with at least a part of the reasonable value of his occupancy or use, and in some cases may hold him accountable for profits realized from the premises, even though he could not otherwise be required to account or be held liable respecting any of such benefits.’” [3]Hunter v. Schultz (1966) 240 Cal.App. 2d 24, 30–31.

Indeed, the Court of Appeal has stated the general rule is that “a cotenant out of possession has no right against another in exclusive possession of the premises to recover a share of the profits derived from the common property by reason of the labor and expenditure of the cotenant in possession . . .” [4]Teixeira v. Verissimo, (1966) 239 Cal. App. 2d 147, 155.

Hunter suggests that a tenant out of possession may only receive rental value defensively to reduce the offset against them to zero, meaning they can avoid paying maintenance or repair costs to the tenant in possession. In other words, the finding in Schultz would not allow the tenant out of possession to recover such rent, but would allow them to avoid paying the tenant in possession. This also means that a co-owner in possession attempting to offensively claim offsets owned to them by the co-owner out of possession will likely not be able to do so.

For example, we commonly see situations in which a tenant in possession pays for everything – all maintenance, repair, improvements, mortgage, taxes, and other costs associated with the jointly owned property. The tenant out of possession then believes they are entitled to thousands of dollars in rental value from the tenant in possession. Schultz suggests that the tenant in possession cannot offensively demand money owed by the tenant out of possession, including mortgage payments, repairs, etc. The tenant out of possession, however, may defensively argue to get the rental value offset to $0, meaning that they do not owe their co-owner, the tenant in possession, anything.

Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.

References

References
1 Conley v. Sharpe, (1943) 58 Cal. App. 2d 145, 155–56.
2 Estate of Hughes v. Ben G. Patton, (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1607, 1611.
3 Hunter v. Schultz (1966) 240 Cal.App. 2d 24, 30–31.
4 Teixeira v. Verissimo, (1966) 239 Cal. App. 2d 147, 155.


Forcing the Sale of an Inherited House in California

Can I Force the Sale of Inherited Property? Understanding exactly what to do after a close family member passes away is one of the most difficult things someone can go through. A whirlwind of confusion and sadness makes decision making near impossible, especially when real property is involved. Real estate is no doubt a major ... Read...

Forcing the Sale of Inherited House in CaliforniaForcing the Sale of Inherited House in California

Can I Force the Sale of Inherited Property?

Understanding exactly what to do after a close family member passes away is one of the most difficult things someone can go through. A whirlwind of confusion and sadness makes decision making near impossible, especially when real property is involved. Real estate is no doubt a major concern for those who have inherited it. To make matters more complicated, if the property has been inherited by multiple heirs, they may disagree over whether to continue to live in, lease it, or simply sell the property. Tensions with uncooperative co-owners can make the grieving process even more complicated.

If you have a sister, brother, or other co-owner living in your inherited home, you may have to force the sale of the property. Luckily, the real estate attorneys at Talkov Law in California have years of experience handling the forced sale of inherited property through what is known as a partition action.

The Right to Partition of a Jointly Owned Inherited House

Whether you have inherited vacant land or a home with a sibling or other co-owner, the “right to partition is absolute“.[1]Priddel v. Shankie (1945) 69 Cal.App. 2d 319, 325. “Ordinarily, therefore, if a party seeking partition is shown to be a tenant in common or a joint tenant, the right is absolute and cannot be denied, either because of any supposed difficulty or on the suggestion that the interests of the cotenants will be promoted by refusing the application or temporarily postponing the action. The only indispensable requirement is that a clear title be shown, and in no event is a partition to be denied because it might result in financial loss to the cotenants.” [2]48 Cal Jur Partition § 36. This means that all heirs do not have to agree on what to do with the property in order for it to be sold. If even one co-owner wants to sell the property, a partition action will force the sale of the inherited property. An experienced partition attorney can ensure the best outcome for co-owners who disagree.

Can I Sell Inherited Property with Multiple Owners?

The short answer is yes – a partition action can be commenced by any co-owner with an interest in the property. This includes those with even a small fractional interest in the property. Being a majority owner of a property is not a prerequisite to forcing the sale of the jointly owned property. The public policy logic behind this is that few (if any) potential buyers will want to buy a fractional interest in a property. Therefore, forcing the sale of the property ensures that all co-owners can obtain their equitable share of the property once it is sold.

How Inherited Properties End Up With Multiple Owners

When the owner of property dies, the estate can end up with multiple owners of a single property in various ways. First, if a party dies without a trust, or the property is not in a trust, probate may result in each heir receiving a fractional interest in the property.

Further, if a property is owned by co-owners by way of a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, the rights of property ownership will bypass probate and be transferred directly to the surviving co-owner(s). However, this transfer ends the joint tenancy and instead creates a tenancy in common. Tenants in common may find that they disagree on what to do with inherited property.

Even further, an ordinary living trust can leave a property to multiple owners, as can a transfer on death deed.

However the parties ended up in the mess of co-ownership, the law provides only one solution: a partition by sale of the property.

Contact a Real Estate Partition Attorney with Experience in Inherited Property

Navigating the way after the passing of a loved one isn’t easy. Unfortunately, inheriting real property from a deceased loved one can complicate the grieving process even further. The attorneys at Talkov Law are here to help. With attorneys who understand both real estate litigation and probate administration, Talkov Law’s lawyers are poised to help you with any inherited property concerns.

Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.

References

References
1 Priddel v. Shankie (1945) 69 Cal.App. 2d 319, 325.
2 48 Cal Jur Partition § 36.


Partition of Personal Property

Personal Property in a Partition Action A partition action in California can certainly force the sale of jointly owned real property, but can it partition personal property, such as cars or artwork? This is a common question we are asked given our experience as California partition lawyers. Indeed, California law does allow for the partition ... Read...

Personal Property in a Partition California Partition Lawyer Talkov LawPersonal Property in a Partition California Partition Lawyer Talkov Law

Personal Property in a Partition Action

A partition action in California can certainly force the sale of jointly owned real property, but can it partition personal property, such as cars or artwork? This is a common question we are asked given our experience as California partition lawyers. Indeed, California law does allow for the partition of personal property in a partition action.

The scope of the partition statutes in California sets forth that: “This title governs actions for partition of real property and, except to the extent not applicable, actions for partition of personal property.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 872.020.

In fact, another section sets forth that: “The complaint shall set forth: (a) description of the property that is the subject of the action. In the case of tangible personal property, the description shall include its usual location.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 872.230(a).

As one court explained: “When several persons are co-owners of real or personal property any one or more of the co-owners may file an action for partition. It then becomes the duty of the court to partition the same and if this cannot be done without great prejudice to such owners, it is the duty of the court to cause the property to be sold and to partition the proceeds among them according to their respective interests.” Rutledge v. Rutledge, 119 Cal. App. 2d 114, 118–19  (Cal. App. 1953) (citing former California Code of Civil Procedure sections 752, 752a).

In Bolan v. Gallagher, 52 Cal. App. 503, 504–05 (Cal. App. 1921), a defendant:

claimed here that the court erred in overruling the demurrer. The action was brought to secure a decree for the partition of real and personal property. Sections 752 and 752a (added by St. 1919, p. 73) Code of Civil Procedure, provide for such relief and the latter section provides that ‘real and personal property may be partitioned in the same action.’ Appellants particularly insist that their demurrer should have been sustained because the alleged causes of action were not separately stated. It is true that the property sought to be partitioned, both real and personal, was described in the single cause of action alleged in the complaint.

Ultimately, the Bolan court affirmed that the demurrer was properly overruled.

While personal property can be partitioned, it is usually only wise to do so in connection with a partition of real property since the legal fees may be very similar to a partition of real property, but personal property is often of lower value.

Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.


Link to Dmoz Category: Legal Services

Or if you prefer use one of our linkware images? Click here

Let's make the web great again! Submit to Dmoz and get listed in a great directory.