California Code of Civil Procedure 872.610 is the California partition statute that specifies that the interests of all parties may be tried in the partition action. The statute provides that:
The interests of the parties, plaintiff as well as defendant, may be put in issue, tried, and determined in the action.
California Code of Civil Procedure 872.610
This reflects the scope of partition in that “[a]ll conflicting claims existing between the parties and arising out of their relationship as cotenants can be adjudicated in the partition action.”[1]
As the Court of Appeal explained the importance of Code of Civil Procedure § 872.610,“in a suit for partition all parties’ interests in the property may be put in issue regardless of the record title (Code Civ. Proc., § 872.610…)” Milian v. De Leon (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1185, 1195–1196.
Indeed, Millian cites to Kershman v. Kershman (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 23, 26, 13 Cal.Rptr. 290, which expressly rejected the notion that a partition court is bound by the face of a joint tenancy deed. In Kershman, the appellant claimed that because title was held in joint tenancy, “the trial court did not have the power under the pleadings to do other than order an equal division of the proceeds upon the sale,” finding that “This argument is without merit.” Instead, the Court of Appeal explained that by seeking partition, the plaintiff “put in issue the interest of each of the parties,” and therefore “the deed of joint tenancy was only one item of evidence to be considered by the court in connection with other probative facts.”
Thus, the court is entitled to conduct an accounting, reimbursement of costs, expenses, and improvements by one cotenant.[2] The court can also award offsets like attorney’s fees and costs, as well as partition referee fees.[3] Indeed: “The answer may set forth any claim the defendant has for contribution or other compensatory adjustment.” California Code of Civil Procedure 872.430. A trial court is entitled to “grant[ a] motion for summary adjudication on [a] cause of action for partition by sale… and to enter an interlocutory judgment directing partition of the Property by sale.” LEG Investments v. Boxler (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 484, 497–98.
Indeed, in a partition, the court “may enter a judgment that one of the parties is the owner in fee of the land described in the complaint.” 48 Cal. Jur. 3d Partition § 14 (citing Livermore v. Webb (1880) 56 Cal. 489).
Talkov Law's Partition Attorneys Can Help
If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. With twelve, full time partition lawyers, Talkov Law is the #1 partition law firm in California and has handled over 575 partition actions throughout California. Every case has resulted in a sale to either a third party or one of the co-owners. Not a single court has denied our clients the right to partition or declared our client to be a non-owner. Plus, for qualified cases, there is no fee until we settle or win your case!
If you're looking to end your co-ownership dispute, contact California's premier partition action law firm by calling Talkov Law at (877) PARTITION (727-8484) or sending us a message today.
References
| ↑1 | Miller & Starr, Right of partition—Decree of partition, 4 Cal. Real Est. (4th ed.) § 11:18. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | Wallace v. Daley (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 1028, 1035–1038; see Code of Civil Procedure § 872.140 |
| ↑3 | Code of Civil Procedure 874.010(a); Code of Civil Procedure 874.040 |
