California Code of Civil Procedure 874.040 is the California partition statute that allows the court to apportion costs between the co-owners from the proceeds of sale of the property. The statute provides that:
Except as otherwise provided in this article, the court shall apportion the costs of partition among the parties in proportion to their interests or make such other apportionment as may be equitable.California Code of Civil Procedure 874.040
As a leading California secondary source explains: “The fees must be apportioned among the parties in proportion to their interests, unless the court determines that some other apportionment is more equitable.(C.C.P. 874.040.) (See Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 C.A.4th 527, 545, 3 C.R.3d 604 [trial court abused discretion in awarding 100% of fees incurred in partition action to plaintiff; fees … Continue reading
“Again, the fact that the action was contested was no bar to the proportional allocation of attorney fees.” Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 957, 967.
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 six, full time partition lawyers, Talkov Law is the #1 partition law firm in California and has handled 250 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!
|↑1||(C.C.P. 874.040.) (See Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 C.A.4th 527, 545, 3 C.R.3d 604 [trial court abused discretion in awarding 100% of fees incurred in partition action to plaintiff; fees should have been divided in proportion to parties’ ownership interest in property; additional fees that plaintiff incurred in consulting bankruptcy attorney should not have been awarded at all without evidence that they were for common benefit]; Lin v. Jeng (2012) 203 C.A.4th 1008, 1022, 138 C.R.3d 84 [trial court properly apportioned attorneys’ fees to place entire liability for plaintiff’s fees on plaintiff, rather than apportioning them among her siblings according to their interests; C.C.P. 874.040 permits trial court to apportion based on equitable considerations, which here included finding that plaintiff manipulated process to deprive siblings of their fair share]; Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16 C.A.5th 957, 965, 224 C.R.3d 736 [fees incurred for common benefit by either party in contested partition proceeding may be allocated among parties].)” Partition Actions., 7 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 6th Judgm (2022) § 229.|
|↑2||California Code of Civil Procedure 874.010(a)|