In Starcevic v. Pentech, the California Court of Appeal held that a creditor ranked first against a co-owner’s share of partition sale money lost its place when its judgment expired. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 872.040, a partition does not excuse compliance with other property laws.
In Finney v. Gomez, the Court of Appeal held that partition attorney’s fees are ordinarily split by ownership, so a 50 percent owner cannot be charged with 100 percent of the fees without evidence supporting a different split. Lin v. Jeng later gave courts more room to shift fees.
Not while probate is pending. In Amundson v. Catello (2025), the Court of Appeal held that siblings who only expected to inherit property still in probate had no right to bring a partition action.
Willmon v. Koyer (1914) 168 Cal. 369 is a key California case on compensatory adjustments in partition, which account for what each co-owner contributed.
When a co-owner files bankruptcy, the trustee may sell the co-owned property under section 363(h) of the Bankruptcy Code. Under In re Flynn, the court can still apply California partition offsets.
A co-owner in sole possession who paid all the expenses often expects full reimbursement. Under Hunter v. Schultz, the other co-owner can offset the property’s rental value against those claims.
Milian v. De Leon (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1185 held that once a partition court finds a true joint tenancy, the co-owners generally share equally without reimbursement for unequal contributions.
Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 138 is often misread. It requires only that the parties’ ownership interests be decided before an interlocutory judgment of partition.
Wallace v. Daley (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1028 may be the most cited case in California partition law. It holds that every partition includes an accounting of offsets.
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.
