In Lin v. Jeng, the Court of Appeal held that courts have broad power to divide partition attorney’s fees based on fairness, and upheld an order making a sister pay all of her own fees after she claimed 85 percent of a family home her siblings co-owned.
In Jamison v. Jamison, the California Court of Appeal explained that a court dividing co-owned land must value each parcel to set owelty, and held that a co-owner who did not timely move for a new trial could not challenge the owelty amount on appeal.
In LEG Investments v. Boxler, the California Court of Appeal held that a right of first refusal between co-owners does not waive partition. The co-owner who wants out must offer its share first; if the other owner declines, a partition sale can follow.
In Starcevic v. Pentech, the California Court of Appeal held that a creditor ranked first against a co-owner’s share of partition sale money lost its place when its judgment expired. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 872.040, a partition does not excuse compliance with other property laws.
In Finney v. Gomez, the Court of Appeal held that partition attorney’s fees are ordinarily split by ownership, so a 50 percent owner cannot be charged with 100 percent of the fees without evidence supporting a different split. Lin v. Jeng later gave courts more room to shift fees.
Representing co-owners statewide. Find your nearest Talkov Law office.
Practical guides from attorneys who focus exclusively on California partition actions.
The information on this site, including the Talkov Law Blog, is intended for general information purposes only. By using this site, you agree that any information contained in the site does not constitute legal, financial or any other form of professional advice. Information on this site may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, correct or up-to-date.
