In Riddle v. Harmon, the California Court of Appeal held that a joint tenant can end a joint tenancy on her own, without her co-owner’s consent and without a “strawman,” by signing a deed from herself to herself as a tenant in common.
In Capuccio v. Caire (1922), the California Supreme Court held that co-owners who moved property into a revived company without a co-owner’s consent could not defeat her partition. The company at most stepped into their shoes as a co-owner.
In Capuccio v. Caire, the California Supreme Court held that a partition plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for the common benefit are shared by all owners, even when the other owners fight the case, and even before the fees are paid.
In Stutz v. Davis, a one-third owner forced a partition and bought the property. The court split attorney’s fees by ownership on the full sale price and denied the lenders’ fees.
In Kershman v. Kershman, the California Court of Appeal held that co-owners on a joint tenancy deed can own unequal shares if they agreed their shares would follow what each paid, and that a co-owner’s debts come out of his share of the sale proceeds, not his ownership percentage, so he keeps his share of the appreciation.
In Demetris v. Demetris, the California Court of Appeal let a father undo a mistaken joint tenancy deed and convert it to a tenancy in common, repaid the extra $1,000 he put toward his son’s share, and held that a loan on the whole house is paid from all the sale proceeds before the co-owners divide it.
In Southern Adjustment Bureau v. Nelson, the California Court of Appeal held that a co-owner who paid taxes, insurance, and loan payments is repaid the full amount from a partition sale before the rest is split, and showed how repaying only half underpays that co-owner.
In Martin v. Walker, the California Supreme Court held that a co-owner who never lived on the property, and whose co-owner held all of it and denied their title, could still sue for partition. The court decides who owns what in the same case.
In Lazzarevich v. Lazzarevich, the California Supreme Court held that a joint tenant has a right to partition unless waived, and that an unpaid judgment owed to a co-owner cannot defeat that right.
In De Roulet v. Mitchel, the California Court of Appeal held that a co-owner cannot block or delay a partition sale because the property has a profitable lease or its value is expected to rise.
In Ventre v. Tiscornia, the California Court of Appeal held that a co-owner who pays for necessary improvements in good faith must be credited for them in a partition, even without the other owner’s consent.
In De Uprey v. De Uprey, the California Supreme Court affirmed the sale of a co-owned San Francisco lot despite five demurrers, holding that a partition complaint need not say how the property should be divided and that ownership disputes are decided inside the partition.
Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim explains the evidence supporting partition by sale: an inability to divide the property fairly or a material loss in value from division.
Sting v. Beckham upheld a partition by sale where a single water well supplied much of the property’s value, making physical division unfair to the owner who would receive land without it.
In Zaslow v. Kroenert, the California Supreme Court held that a co-owner who changes the locks and refuses entry commits an ouster, and the locked-out owner can recover their share of the rental value.
In Richmond v. Dofflemyer, a California court divided part of a family ranch in kind and sent the rest to a referee. See what it means for co-owners.
In Priddel v. Shankie, the California Court of Appeal held that a co-owner’s right to partition is absolute and that another co-owner’s homestead on their own share cannot stop a court-ordered sale.
A California court cannot order a partition by appraisal unless the co-owners agree to it. Cummings v. Dessel explains the written agreement rule, the public notice rule for sales, and what co-owners can do instead.
Orien v. Lutz explains that reasonable attorney’s fees in a contested partition can benefit all co-owners and be allocated among them. A co-owner’s opposition does not defeat that common benefit; the court determines which fees qualify and how to apportion them equitably.
In Zieve v. Dhindsa, the California Court of Appeal confirmed that a co-owner can borrow against their own share without the others’ consent, but the loan reaches only that share, even in a foreclosure. The co-owner who never borrowed received 25 percent of the surplus.
In Preciado v. Wilde, the California Court of Appeal held that a co-owner cannot take a relative’s share by adverse possession through exclusive use alone. Between co-owners, the bar is higher than between strangers.
Hacienda Ranch Homes v. Superior Court defines ouster as the wrongful exclusion of a co-owner and holds that paying the taxes, maintaining the land, and posting a for-sale sign did not let one co-owner take the whole property from the others.
In Lin v. Jeng, the Court of Appeal held that courts have broad power to divide partition attorney’s fees based on fairness, and upheld an order making a sister pay all of her own fees after she claimed 85 percent of a family home her siblings co-owned.
In Jamison v. Jamison, the California Court of Appeal explained that a court dividing co-owned land must value each parcel to set owelty, and held that a co-owner who did not timely move for a new trial could not challenge the owelty amount on appeal.
In LEG Investments v. Boxler, the California Court of Appeal held that a right of first refusal between co-owners does not waive partition. The co-owner who wants out must offer its share first; if the other owner declines, a partition sale can follow.
Representing co-owners statewide. Find your nearest Talkov Law office.
Practical guides from attorneys who focus exclusively on California partition actions.
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.
