Danville Partition Attorney

Partition Lawyers in Danville

Our Danville partition litigation attorneys will work diligently to obtain a favorable outcome on your behalf, whether by negotiation or litigation. 

Talkov Law’s attorneys serving Contra Costa County are exceptionally experienced in the area of California partition actions. A California partition action is a law that allows co-owners of real property to divide the property among themselves. The partition statutes provide a legal mechanism for co-owners to divide the property without having to go through the court system. The partition statutes allow co-owners to divide the property either by agreement or by court order. If the co-owners cannot agree on how to divide the property, then the court will divide the property in a way that is fair and equitable to all parties. The partition statutes also provide that any partition of the property must be in accordance with the laws of the state of California. The legal effect of the partition statutes is that it provides a legal mechanism for co-owners to divide their property without having to go through the court system.

For a free consultation with California’s first and largest team of partition attorneys at Talkov Law at (925) 999-7700 or contact us online today.

Call us at (925) 999-7700 or contact us below to schedule a free, 15-minute consultation.

Perelli-Minetti v. Lawson - Partition Action Case Study

In the legal case of Perelli-Minetti v. Lawson, 205 Cal. 642 (1928), the issue of partition was at the center of the dispute. The case involved a dispute between two co-owners of a piece of real property. The two co-owners had inherited the property from their father, who had died without a will. The court was asked to determine whether the two co-owners should be allowed to partition the property, meaning that each would receive a portion of the property. The court ultimately ruled that the two co-owners could not partition the property, as it would be too difficult to divide the property in a fair and equitable manner. The court also noted that the two co-owners had not been able to agree on a partition plan, and that the property was not suitable for partition.