Multi-property partitions can become one of the most complicated real estate disputes co-owners face. When co-owners purchase or when families inherit multiple properties together, it doesn’t take long before disagreements arise. Some co-owners want to sell everything, while others insist on keeping certain properties in the family.
This raises an important question: Should all properties be included in the partition action, or is it better to leave one out?
At Talkov Law Partition Attorneys, we help co-owners navigate complex partition cases, including disputes involving multiple properties. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today to learn how we can protect your rights.
Partitioning Multiple Properties in California
Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 872.210, any co-owner can force a partition of real property. When multiple properties are jointly owned, the court has flexibility in how to divide or sell them.
Options include:
- Partition by sale of all properties, with proceeds divided among co-owners.
- Partition in kind by physical division where feasible, such as splitting acreage.
- Partition in kind by dividing lots and parcels, thereby awarding certain property to one co-owner and another property to another co-owner
- Selective partition – although not a recognized manner of partition, this is simply where only some properties are included in the lawsuit.
Should You Leave One Property Out of the Partition?
Sometimes, co-owners consider excluding one property from a partition case.
For example:
- Plaintiff lives at one of the co-owned properties: the plaintiff may be afraid that this home will be lost in a partition
- Sentimental property: A family home that one sibling wants to keep.
- Unequal interest: One co-owner holds a larger share in one property than others.
- Rental income: A property generates cash flow that owners want to preserve.
However, leaving a property out can create complications:
- Future disputes: Excluding one property often leads to another conflict later.
- Cross-Complaints: The defendant may simply file a cross-action to partition the omitted property. However, this may have certain advantages to accomplish a buyout under the Partition of Real Property Act.
- Unequal division: If the excluded property is valuable, it may skew fairness.
When Excluding a Property Might Make Sense
Although it is extremely uncommon, there are certain situations where leaving one property out of a partition may be practical. For example, if all co-owners clearly agree that a particular property should remain jointly owned, the court may not need to force its sale. This often happens with properties that carry deep sentimental value, such as a family vacation home.
Exclusion may also make sense where a buyout arrangement is possible. In these cases, one co-owner compensates the others for their interest in a specific property, allowing that property to remain outside the partition while still ensuring fairness to all parties. Similarly, some disputes are resolved through negotiated settlements during the partition process, where the co-owners agree to divide their interests without requiring every property to be sold in court. Other co-owned properties may be of little or no value such that the partition legal fees are not justified.
These scenarios are the exception, not the rule, but they demonstrate that exclusion is possible in limited, carefully structured circumstances.
Why It’s Usually Better to Include All Properties in the Partition
While there are rare circumstances where leaving a property out makes sense, in most cases it is better to include all jointly owned properties in the same partition action.
Here’s why:
- Preventing Future Conflict: Leaving one property out may only delay the inevitable. Including everything in the same case gives all co-owners closure and prevents a repeat dispute. Unusually, if the parties cannot get along on one property, similar issues will arise in the future on other co-owned properties.
- Efficiency and Cost Savings: By hiring a single partition law firm to handle all properties in one case, co-owners avoid the expense of multiple lawsuits. Resolving every issue at once streamlines the process, reduces legal fees and court costs, and ensures a faster, more cost-effective outcome.
- Final Resolution: Including all properties ensures that disputes are settled in one case, rather than dragging family members back into court years later over a property that was left out.
- Fairness in Accounting: Partition actions often involve reimbursement claims for expenses like improvements and repairs. By including all properties, the court can account for contributions across the entire portfolio, not just part of it.
- Stronger Negotiating Position: When all properties are on the table, co-owners have more flexibility to negotiate settlements, such as trading shares in one property for a greater share in another.
For most heirs and co-owners, the benefits of a global resolution outweigh the risks of piecemeal litigation.
Talkov Law’s Guidance on Multi-Property Partitions
Every situation is unique. Whether leaving one property out of a partition is wise depends on the property values, family dynamics, and long-term goals of the co-owners. Our partition attorneys carefully analyze each case to ensure our clients maximize their inheritance and avoid repeat disputes.
If you’re facing a multi-property partition, don’t leave your rights to chance. Call Talkov Law at (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today for a consultation.
