Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim: Evidence Required for Partition by Sale
Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim explains the evidence supporting partition by sale: an inability to divide the property fairly or a material loss in value from division.
Sting v. Beckham: When a Water Well Makes Physical Partition Unfair
Sting v. Beckham upheld a partition by sale where a single water well supplied much of the property’s value, making physical division unfair to the owner who would receive land without it.
Zaslow v. Kroenert: When a Co-Owner Changes the Locks
In Zaslow v. Kroenert, the California Supreme Court held that a co-owner who changes the locks and refuses entry commits an ouster, and the locked-out owner can recover their share of the rental value.
Richmond v. Dofflemyer: Can a Court Divide Co-Owned Land in Stages?
In Richmond v. Dofflemyer, a California court divided part of a family ranch in kind and sent the rest to a referee. See what it means for co-owners.
Priddel v. Shankie: Why the Right to Partition Is Absolute
In Priddel v. Shankie, the California Court of Appeal held that a co-owner’s right to partition is absolute and that another co-owner’s homestead on their own share cannot stop a court-ordered sale.
Cummings v. Dessel: Can a Court Order Partition by Appraisal?
A California court cannot order a partition by appraisal unless the co-owners agree to it. Cummings v. Dessel explains the written agreement rule, the public notice rule for sales, and what co-owners can do instead.
Orien v. Lutz: Common-Benefit Attorney’s Fees in Contested Partitions
Orien v. Lutz explains that reasonable attorney’s fees in a contested partition can benefit all co-owners and be allocated among them. A co-owner’s opposition does not defeat that common benefit; the court determines which fees qualify and how to apportion them equitably.
Zieve v. Dhindsa: A Co-Owner’s Loan Reaches Only Their Own Share
In Zieve v. Dhindsa, the California Court of Appeal confirmed that a co-owner can borrow against their own share without the others’ consent, but the loan reaches only that share, even in a foreclosure. The co-owner who never borrowed received 25 percent of the surplus.
Preciado v. Wilde: A Co-Owner Cannot Take Title by Exclusive Possession Alone
In Preciado v. Wilde, the California Court of Appeal held that a co-owner cannot take a relative’s share by adverse possession through exclusive use alone. Between co-owners, the bar is higher than between strangers.
Hacienda Ranch Homes v. Superior Court: What Counts as Ouster Between Co-Owners
Hacienda Ranch Homes v. Superior Court defines ouster as the wrongful exclusion of a co-owner and holds that paying the taxes, maintaining the land, and posting a for-sale sign did not let one co-owner take the whole property from the others.
