Code of Civil Procedure 872.810 CCP – Division in Accordance with Interests (Manner of Partition)

California Code of Civil Procedure 872.810 is the California partition statute that provides for the manner of partition to be the manner set forth in the interlocutory judgment of partition, i.e., partition in kind vs. partition by sale. The statute provides that:

The court shall order that the property be divided among the parties in accordance with their interests in the property as determined in the interlocutory judgment.

California Code of Civil Procedure 872.810

General Preference for Partition in Kind

“Section 872.810 continues the preference of prior law for partition by division in kind.”[1]1976 Law Revision Commission Comment to California Code of Civil Procedure 872.810 “Partition in kind is favored in law and in the absence of proof to the contrary the presumption in favor of in kind division will prevail.”[2]Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim (1982) 136 Cal.App. 3d 360, 365

Exception Swallows the Rule: Single-Family Homes Will Almost Always Result in Partition by Sale

However, Section 872.810 must be read in connection with Section 872.820(b), which provides that:

Notwithstanding Section 872.810, the court shall order that the property be sold and the proceeds be divided among the parties in accordance with their interests in the property as determined in the interlocutory judgment in the following situations:…The court determines that, under the circumstances, sale and division of the proceeds would be more equitable than division of the property. For the purpose of making the determination, the court may appoint a referee and take into account his report.[3]California Code of Civil Procedure 872.820(b)

As a practical matter, this exception for partition by sale in 872.820(b) swallows the general preference for partition in kind in 872.810 for most partitions. This is because it is “more equitable” to sell the single-family homes that form the property in most partitions since division of such a house into two parcels of equal value is usually not possible. As one secondary source explains, a “sale may be more equitable if, for example, the value of the whole would exceed that of the divided parcels, or zoning restrictions make physical division impracticable.”[4]Determination of Manner of Partition., 12 Witkin, Summary 11th Real Prop (2020) § 73

One court explained this reality that most properties are partition by sale as follows: “In many modern transactions, sale of the property is preferable to physical division since the value of the divided parcels frequently will not equal the value of the whole parcel before division. Moreover, physical division may be impossible due to zoning restrictions or may be highly impractical.”[5]Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim (1982) 136 Cal. App. 3d 360, 366–67; accord Cummings v. Dessel (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 589, 597

A rare exception would be a single-family home located on a parcel with a significant portion of land with value equal to the house, e.g., a farm house. Another rare exception might be when there are two homes on a lot. However, generally, this element of the manner of partition for an interlocutory judgment is almost always met as a matter of law for single-family homes.[6]California Code of Civil Procedure 872.720

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 300 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 1976 Law Revision Commission Comment to California Code of Civil Procedure 872.810
2 Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim (1982) 136 Cal.App. 3d 360, 365
3 California Code of Civil Procedure 872.820(b)
4 Determination of Manner of Partition., 12 Witkin, Summary 11th Real Prop (2020) § 73
5 Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim (1982) 136 Cal. App. 3d 360, 366–67; accord Cummings v. Dessel (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 589, 597
6 California Code of Civil Procedure 872.720
Avatar photo
About Talkov Law Partition Attorneys

The partition attorneys at Talkov Law end co-ownership disputes by representing co-owners in real estate partition actions throughout the State of California.

Talkov Law is Rated 5 out of 5 stars based on 103 customer 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

      US News and World Report Scott Talkov

      We Have Been Featured On:

      The Real Deal

      Offices Throughout California

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Sacramento Office
      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.