Code of Civil Procedure 872.620 CCP – State of the Title; Ascertainment (Partition Actions)

California Code of Civil Procedure 872.620 is the California partition statute that allows the court to decide the state of title as part of the partition action. The statute provides that:

To the extent necessary to grant the relief sought or other appropriate relief, the court shall upon adequate proof ascertain the state of the title to the property.

California Code of Civil Procedure 872.620

Stated simply, the relative titles and interests of the parties to an action for partition may be litigated and determined in the partition action.[1]Morenhout v. Higuera (1867) 32 Cal. 289 Effectively, a partition lawsuit can incorporate the same conclusions found in a quiet title action.

Specifically, in a partition action, “[t]he interests of the parties, plaintiff as well as defendant, may be put in issue, tried, and determined in the action.”[2]California Code of Civil Procedure 872.610 “The section makes clear that the court may resolve any title disputes in the course of the proceeding where placed in issue by answer of a defendant or cross-defendant.”[3]California Code of Civil Procedure 872.610, Law Revision Comment

Equitable Title in Partition Actions

“Partition is an equitable action, and in the disposition thereof the trial court will determine the interests of all parties involved so as to effect a complete adjudication of the controversy and avoid a multiplicity of suits.”[4]Elbert, Ltd. v. Clare (1953) 40 Cal.2d 498, 501 “In such [a partition] action the parties may assert any title they have, legal or equitable, and the court will decree what is equitable and proper.”[5]Demetris v. Demetris (1954) 125 Cal. App. 2d 440, 445

The partition statutes make clear that: “The interests of the parties, plaintiff as well as defendant, may be put in issue, tried, and determined in the action.”[6] Code Civ. Proc. § 872.610; see Determination of Interests, 12 Witkin, Summary 11th Real Prop (2022) § 70.

“An equitable interest is sufficient to support a partition action.” [7]Powers v. Powers (1963) 221 Cal.App. 2d 746, 750; see Capuccio v. Caire (1922) 189 Cal. 514, 525–26 (“the legal or equitable owners of their respective interests in said real property,…were, … Continue reading Indeed, to avoid “litigation by piecemeal,” there is “no reason why the owner of the equitable title may not sue to establish his right, and when so established, if he is a tenant in common, ask for and have a partition of the common estate….” [8]Watson v. Sutro (1890) 86 Cal. 500, 528–29.

Evidence Code section 662 provides that: “The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof.” In turn, “Evidence Code section 662 has application, by its express terms, when there is no dispute as to where legal title resides but there is question as to where all or part of the beneficial title should rest.”[9]Murray v. Murray (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1067; see Coyne v. De Leo (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 801, 819

Even further, the clear and convincing evidence standard is extremely onerous for any party trying to overcome the title presumption in Evidence Code section 662. “‘The burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence ‘requires a finding of high probability. The evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt. It must be sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.”[10]Reed v. Gallagher (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 841, 861–62 Continued, “California’s form of title presumption ‘is based on promoting the public policy in favor of the stability of titles to property,’ and ‘allegations that legal title does not represent beneficial ownership have been historically disfavored because society and the courts have a reluctance to tamper with duly executed instruments and documents of legal title.’” [11]In re Fadel, 492 B.R. 1, 11 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2013) (applying California law)

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 seven, full time partition lawyers, Talkov Law is the #1 partition law firm in California and has handled over 370 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 (844) 4-TALKOV (825568) or sending us a message today.

References

References
1 Morenhout v. Higuera (1867) 32 Cal. 289
2 California Code of Civil Procedure 872.610
3 California Code of Civil Procedure 872.610, Law Revision Comment
4 Elbert, Ltd. v. Clare (1953) 40 Cal.2d 498, 501
5 Demetris v. Demetris (1954) 125 Cal. App. 2d 440, 445
6 Code Civ. Proc. § 872.610; see Determination of Interests, 12 Witkin, Summary 11th Real Prop (2022) § 70.
7 Powers v. Powers (1963) 221 Cal.App. 2d 746, 750; see Capuccio v. Caire (1922) 189 Cal. 514, 525–26 (“the legal or equitable owners of their respective interests in said real property,…were, therefore, entitled to institute and maintain this action for the partition of said real property”); Demetris v. Demetris (1954) 125 Cal.App. 2d 440, 445 (“In such action the parties may assert any title they have, legal or equitable, and the court will decree what is equitable and proper”); Murphy v. Crowley (1903) 140 Cal. 141, 145 (“The owner of an equitable title is the owner of real property, and may maintain an action to establish his equitable right, and in the same action obtain a partition of the real property to which he claims a complete title in equity.”); Luco v. De Toro (1981) 91 Cal. 405 (“in this action for a partition there can be no doubt that the parties may assert any title which they have, legal or equitable”).
8 Watson v. Sutro (1890) 86 Cal. 500, 528–29.
9 Murray v. Murray (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1067; see Coyne v. De Leo (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 801, 819
10 Reed v. Gallagher (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 841, 861–62
11 In re Fadel, 492 B.R. 1, 11 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2013) (applying California law)
About Scott Talkov

Scott Talkov is California's #1 partition lawyer, having handled over 370 partition actions. He founded Talkov Law Corp. after more than one decade of experience at a California real estate litigation firm, where he served as one of the firm's partners. He has been featured on CNN, ABC 7, KCBS, and KCAL-9, and in the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Press-Enterprise, and in Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine. Scott has been rated by Super Lawyers since 2013. He can be reached about new matters at info@talkovlaw.com or (844) 4-TALKOV (825568). He can also be contacted directly at scott@talkovlaw.com.

Talkov Law is Rated 5 out of 5 stars based on 169 reviews

Contact Us Today for a Free Consultation & Pay No Retainer

Call Talkov Law to discuss having your legal fees paid from the proceeds of sale of your property and no money down







      Awards and Recognition

      Scott Talkov Partition Attorney Super Lawyers
      US News and World Report Scott Talkov

      We Have Been Featured On:

      The Real Deal

      Offices Throughout California

      Los Angeles Partition Attorneys
      10880 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1101
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Phone: (310) 496-3300

      Orange County Partition Attorneys
      4000 MacArthur Blvd Ste 655
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Phone: (949) 888-8800

      San Jose Partition Attorneys
      99 S. Almaden Blvd Suite 600
      San Jose, CA 95113
      Phone: (408) 777-6800

      San Diego Partition Attorneys
      11622 El Camino Real Ste 100
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Phone: (858) 800-3300

      San Francisco Partition Attorneys
      50 California St, Ste 1500
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Phone: (415) 966-3300

      Riverside Partition Attorneys
      3610 Central Ave, Ste 400
      Riverside, CA 92506
      Phone: (951) 888-3300

      Sacramento Partition Attorneys
      500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
      Sacramento, CA 95814
      Phone: (916) 668-3300

      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.