Partition Lawyers in Fremont
Our Fremont partition litigation attorneys will work diligently to obtain a favorable outcome on your behalf, whether by negotiation or litigation.
Talkov Law’s attorneys serving Alameda 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 also provide a way for co-owners to force the sale of the property if they cannot agree on how to divide it. The partition statutes also set out the procedures for the sale of the property and how the proceeds of the sale will be divided among the co-owners. The partition statutes also provide for the payment of costs associated with the sale of the property.
- What is a partition action and when is it necessary?
- Can a Trust File a Partition? Yes, a trust can file a partition action as the co-owner of real property in California.
- How long does a partition action take in California?" Most partition actions are complete in 3 to 6 months because most cases settle in either a buyout or agreed sale. However, some cases can drag on for 6 to 12 months.
- What are the tax implications of a partition action? It is best to seek the advice of a tax attorney or CPA about tax issues. However, the most common tax issues in partitions, like other sales, can involve capital gains taxes and the potential partial or full reassessment of property taxes.
- How does a partition action work in California?
For a free consultation with California’s first and largest team of partition attorneys at Talkov Law at (510) 999-3300 or contact us online today.
Call us at (510) 999-3300 or contact us below to schedule a free, 15-minute consultation.
Buttram v. Finley - Partition Action Case Study
In the legal case of Buttram v. Finley, 73 Cal.App.2d 536 (1946), the issue of partition was at the center of the dispute. The case involved a dispute between two co-owners of a parcel of real property. The plaintiff, Buttram, sought to partition the property, while the defendant, Finley, argued that partition was not necessary because the property was not capable of being divided without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The court ultimately held that partition was necessary, as the property was capable of being divided without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to a partition of the property in accordance with the terms of the deed.
