Partition Lawyers in Cupertino
Our Cupertino partition litigation attorneys will work diligently to obtain a favorable outcome on your behalf, whether by negotiation or litigation.
Talkov Law’s attorneys serving Santa Clara County are exceptionally experienced in the area of California partition actions. California partition actions provide a legal mechanism for co-owners of real property to divide the property among themselves. The partition statutes allow a co-owner to file a lawsuit in court to have the property divided, either physically or by awarding each co-owner a certain percentage of the property's value. The court will then order the property to be divided according to the co-owners' wishes. The partition statutes also provide that if the court finds that a physical division of the property is not possible, it may order the property to be sold and the proceeds divided among the co-owners.
- Are there methods to resolve a partition situation without a court-ordered sale? The vast majority of partitions are solved without a court-ordered sale. Many times, the defendant will buy out the plaintiff's interest. Other times, the parties will agree to a voluntary sale on the open market. However, the filing of the partition action is generally what forces the defendant to see the wisdom of settlement. Under California's Partition of Real Property Act, a defendant can buy out the interest of the plaintiff at an appraised value, meaning that a court-ordered sale is only likely occur where the defendant simply can't afford to buy the property but still won't agree to sell.
- How long will it take to get the property partitioned and sold? Most commonly, 3 to 6 months is all that it takes for the defendant to agree to a sale or buyout the plaintiff's interest in the property for a fair value. Some cases may take 6 to 12 months.
- What is California's Partition of Real Property Act? Effective January 1, 2023, California's new partition law allows defendants to buy out the interests of the plaintiff at an appraised value.
- When is a partition action right for my dispute? Generally, parties who can reach their own resolution of a co-ownership dispute are not reading websites about partition law. If you are reading this article, chances are that your co-ownership dispute has reached a level where legal options are being considered. Filing a partition action will bring about a certain result to the co-ownership dispute, rather than letting it linger for years on end. However, if the parties are very close to a settlement, it may be wise to consider a resolution.
- Will there be a trial in a California partition action? Trials are extremely rare in partition actions because the interlocutory judgment procedure allows for a partition referee to be appointed by meeting just a few elements that rarely involve live testimony from witnesses. Even if a trial occurred, it would almost certainly relate only to the ownership interests or the distribution of proceeds, though most cases are decided on motion heard by the court based on the papers submitted by the parties.
For a free consultation with California’s first and largest team of partition attorneys at Talkov Law at (408) 777-6800 or contact us online today.
Call us at (408) 777-6800 or contact us below to schedule a free, 15-minute consultation.
McCarthy v. Ruddock - Partition Action Case Study
In the legal case of McCarthy v. Ruddock, 43 F.2d 976 (1930), the issue was whether a partition of real property could be made without the consent of all the owners. The case involved a dispute between two brothers, John and William McCarthy, over the partition of a piece of real estate that they jointly owned. The court held that a partition of real property could not be made without the consent of all the owners, and that the partition could not be made without the consent of the brother who was not present at the partition proceedings. The court also held that the partition could not be made without the consent of the brother who was not present at the partition proceedings, and that the partition could not be made without the consent of the brother who was not present at the partition proceedings. The court also held that the partition could not be made without the consent of the brother who was not present at the partition proceedings, and that the partition could not be made without the consent of the brother who was not present at the partition proceedings.