Santa Clara County Partition Attorney

Partition Lawyers in Santa Clara County

Our Santa Clara County 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. 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 resolve disputes over the division of the property. The partition statutes provide that the partition must be done in a fair and equitable manner, and that the court must approve the partition before it can be enforced. The partition statutes also provide that the court may order the sale of the property if the co-owners cannot agree on a partition. 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 (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.

Akhbari v. Nateghi - Partition Action Case Study

In the legal case of Akhbari v. Nateghi, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d (2002), the issue of partition was at the center of the dispute. The plaintiff, Akhbari, owned a one-half interest in a piece of real property with the defendant, Nateghi. Akhbari sought to partition the property, while Nateghi argued that the property was held in joint tenancy and could not be partitioned. The court ultimately held that the property was held in joint tenancy and could not be partitioned. The court reasoned that the parties had not taken any action to sever the joint tenancy, and that the joint tenancy was still in effect. The court also noted that the parties had not taken any action to convert the joint tenancy into a tenancy in common, which would have allowed for partition. As a result, the court held that the property could not be partitioned.