There is no deadline to file a partition action against your co-owner in California. In Adams v. Hopkins (1904) 144 Cal. 19, 27, the California Supreme Court put it in one sentence: “The statute of limitations never bars relief between tenants in common in an action of partition.” The only time the clock matters is when a co-owner has already lost their title entirely, because someone else took it by adverse possession.
Adams is still the case California lawyers cite for that rule, and it is why a co-owner who moved out 10 or 20 years ago can still force a sale today.
Why Adams v. Hopkins Matters
Co-owners who have been out of the property for years often assume they waited too long. A sibling has lived in the inherited house since the funeral. An ex-partner has paid the bills since the breakup. The co-owner in possession may even say so: “You gave up your rights years ago.”
Adams answers that argument. As long as you are still a co-owner, the right to partition is absolute, and it lasts as long as the co-ownership does. Today, Code of Civil Procedure section 872.710 (CCP 872.710’s rule that partition is a matter of right) carries the same principle forward.
The Facts: Partitioning the Sobrante
The case involved the Sobrante, a tract of nearly 20,000 acres in Contra Costa County. Mexico granted the land to Juan José Castro and Victor Castro in 1841, and the United States issued a patent (the federal confirmation of title) in 1883. Over the following decades, interests in the Sobrante were sold, inherited, and divided among many owners.
Edson Adams filed the partition action in 1888. He died in 1890, and his successors under his will carried the case forward. In 1894, the complaint was amended to add six smaller tracts, labeled A through F, that had been left out of the original filing. The trial court entered an interlocutory judgment, which is the order in a partition action that decides who owns what and how the property will be divided. Several defendants appealed, and the Supreme Court decided the case in 1904, sixteen years after it was filed.
For comparison, the average partition action today resolves in seven to nine months.
The Argument: A Four-Year Deadline
On appeal, some defendants argued that the case was simply too late. They relied on Code of Civil Procedure section 343 (CCP 343), California’s four-year catch-all statute of limitations for claims that have no specific deadline of their own. Partition has no specific deadline, so, they argued, the four-year catch-all should apply. (Adams, at p. 27.)
The Holding: The Statute of Limitations Never Bars Partition
The Supreme Court rejected the argument:
“The statute of limitations never bars relief between tenants in common in an action of partition.”
Adams v. Hopkins (1904) 144 Cal. 19, 27
The court explained why. The right to partition is not a single claim that arises on a certain day and then expires. It is part of owning property together, and it continues for as long as the co-ownership does. The court described the general rule as one under which the right to partition between tenants in common is not barred by the lapse of time. (Adams, at p. 28.) The four-year catch-all, the court held, did not apply. (Adams, at p. 27.)
The One Exception: A Co-Owner Who Has Already Lost Title
Adams also explained when time can matter. The statute of limitations comes into a partition case only where a party has “lost all right to and in the land” and that right has “by prescription become vested in another.” (Adams, at p. 27.) In other words, the co-owner must already have lost their ownership to someone else through adverse possession. As the court put it: “Of course, if one has no interest left in the property, he cannot have partition.” (Adams, at p. 27.)
That is what happened to tracts D, E, and F. The people holding those tracts had entered under deeds from co-owners of the Sobrante, then held the land openly, continuously, and behind substantial enclosures for more than five years, with possession dating back as early as 1859. The trial court found the action barred as to the six added tracts and allotted them to the people in possession, and the Supreme Court affirmed. (Adams, at pp. 27–28.)
The court also held that the statute of limitations “may be resorted to in an action of partition so far as it establishes interests in the property,” and that this is consistent with the general rule that time does not bar partition. (Adams, at p. 28.) The point is that the partition court decides who actually owns the property, including whether anyone has lost their interest, in the same case. Under today’s statutes, Code of Civil Procedure section 872.610 (CCP 872.610’s rule on trying the interests of all parties) lets the court decide every party’s interest in the partition action.
Adverse Possession Against a Co-Owner Is Hard to Prove
The exception in Adams is narrow, and later cases have made it narrower for co-owners. Every co-owner has the right to possess the whole property, so a co-owner who lives there alone is presumed to do so with the others’ permission. Living in the house, collecting the rent, or paying the bills is not enough. The co-owner in possession must first commit an ouster, meaning they make clear to the other owners that they claim the whole property for themselves, and then hold it for the full five-year period while paying the property taxes, as Code of Civil Procedure section 325 (CCP 325) now requires.
Our summaries of Preciado v. Wilde and Hacienda Ranch Homes v. Superior Court explain why exclusive use, paying taxes, and maintaining the property do not, by themselves, let one co-owner take the others’ shares. And Martin v. Walker confirms that a co-owner who never lived on the property can still sue for partition.
What Adams v. Hopkins Means for Co-Owners Today
- There is no filing deadline. The statute of limitations never bars a partition action between co-owners, no matter how long you have been out of the property.
- The four-year catch-all does not apply. CCP 343 cannot be used to cut off a co-owner’s right to partition.
- The only risk is losing title itself. Time matters only if another owner has already taken your interest by adverse possession, which between co-owners requires an ouster and five years of hostile possession with taxes paid.
- Ownership is decided in the partition. The court determines who owns what in the same case that ends the co-ownership.
Waiting still has costs, even without a deadline. Our article on the risks of delaying a partition action covers them, and our answer to whether there is a statute of limitations on a partition action explains how credits for mortgage, tax, and insurance payments are handled when one owner has been in possession for years.
Out of the Property for Years? File Your Partition Action
The Adams successors kept their case alive across 16 years and won the right to partition the Sobrante. Your case will not take that long, and the passage of time alone does not cost you your right to sell. If you are still on title, you can file a partition action today.
Talkov Law can help. With 12 full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 650 partition actions throughout California, our team handles every step of the process, from confirming that your ownership is intact through the partition sale and the final distribution of proceeds. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.
