Davis Partition Attorney

Partition Lawyers in Davis

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

Talkov Law’s attorneys serving Yolo 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 (530) 999-5588 or contact us online today.

Call us at (530) 999-5588 or contact us below to schedule a free, 15-minute consultation.

Lake Vineyard Land & Water Ass'n v. San Gabriel Orange Grove Ass'n - Partition Action Case Study

In the legal case of Lake Vineyard Land & Water Ass'n v. San Gabriel Orange Grove Ass'n, 7 P.C.L.J. 695 (1881), involved a dispute over the partition of a large tract of land in California. The dispute arose when the San Gabriel Orange Grove Association (SGOGA) sought to partition the land into two separate parcels, one for the Lake Vineyard Land & Water Association (LVLWA) and one for SGOGA. The LVLWA objected to the partition, arguing that it would be inequitable and would not provide them with an adequate portion of the land. The court ultimately sided with the LVLWA, ruling that the partition proposed by SGOGA was not equitable and that the LVLWA should receive a larger portion of the land. The court also ruled that the partition should be done in such a way that the LVLWA would receive the most valuable portion of the land.