California Code of Civil Procedure 872.710 is the California partition statute that governs the right to partition in California. The statute provides that:
(a) At the trial, the court shall determine whether the plaintiff has the right to partition.
(b) Except as provided in Section 872.730, partition as to concurrent interests in the property shall be as of right unless barred by a valid waiver.
(c) Partition as to successive estates in the property shall be allowed if it is in the best interest of all the parties. The court shall consider whether the possessory interest has become unduly burdensome by reason of taxes or other charges, expense of ordinary or extraordinary repairs, character of the property and change in the character of the property since creation of the estates, circumstances under which the estates were created and change in the circumstances since creation of the estates, and all other factors that would be considered by a court of equity having in mind the intent of the creator of the successive estates and the interests and needs of the successive owners.
California Code of Civil Procedure 872.710
The practical effect of this statute is that: “A co-owner of property has an absolute right to partition unless barred by a valid waiver.” [1]Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16 Cal.App. 5th 957, 962 The waiver of the right to partition is extremely rare in California law.
Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California
If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our knowledgeable partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15-minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 4-TALKOV (825568), email us at info(at)talkovlaw.com, or fill out a contact form online. Contact Talkov Law today to find out how you can pay nothing today and have your legal fees paid from the proceeds of sale of your property!
References
| ↑1 | Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16 Cal.App. 5th 957, 962 |
|---|
