Santa Rosa Partition Attorney

Partition Lawyers in Santa Rosa

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

Talkov Law’s attorneys serving Sonoma County are exceptionally experienced in the area of California partition actions. California partition actions allows for the division of real property owned by two or more persons. This statute allows for the court to order the sale of the property and the division of the proceeds among the owners. The court may also order the property to be physically divided among the owners. The partition statutes also provide for the court to order the sale of the property and the division of the proceeds among the owners if the court finds that a physical division of the property would be impractical or inequitable. The partition statutes also provide for the court to order the sale of the property and the division of the proceeds among the owners if the owners cannot agree on a physical division of the property. The legal effect of the California partition statute is that it allows for the court to order the sale of the property and the division of the proceeds among the owners if the owners cannot agree on a physical division of the property.

  • 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.
  • Who pays for a partition action? In California, each party typically pays for their own attorney's fees (known as the "American Rule"). However, California partition law allows for an exception to this rule, stating that “the court shall apportion the costs of partition among the parties in proportion to their interests or make such other apportionment as may be equitable.” California Code of Civil Procedure 874.040. Indeed, the court may award “reasonable attorney’s fees incurred or paid by a party for the common benefit.” California Code of Civil Procedure 874.010(a).
  • Can we negotiate a settlement instead of going through a partition action? We find that the best solution is to file the partition action, then negotiate a settlement. Defendants often reach a more reasonable settlement when they are being advised by a partition attorney who will explain that the plaintiff is very likely to obtain the sale of the property.
  • What is a partition referee? A partition referee is a neutral third party, often times a lawyer or real estate broker, who completes the sale for the co-owners under court authority. The referee is then paid for their services either on an hourly, flat fee, or commission basis, and is relieved by the court of their duties in the case.
  • What are the potential outcomes of a partition action? The most likely outcome in a partition action is that the plaintiff receives fair value for their interest in the property either through a sale to a third party or to the defendant. In rare cases, a property can be divided, through this is not applicable to single family residences with no surplus land.

For a free consultation with California’s first and largest team of partition attorneys at Talkov Law at (707) 777-6600 or contact us online today.

Call us at (707) 777-6600 or contact us below to schedule a free, 15-minute consultation.

Cooley v. Miller & Lux - Partition Action Case Study

In the legal case of Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 168 Cal. 120 (1914), the issue of partition was at the center of the dispute. The case involved a dispute between two co-owners of a ranch in California. The plaintiff, Cooley, sought to partition the ranch, while the defendant, Miller & Lux, argued that the ranch was not subject to partition because it was held in joint tenancy. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Cooley, finding that the ranch was subject to partition because it was held in tenancy in common, not joint tenancy. The court also held that the partition should be made in accordance with the wishes of the parties, and that the court should not interfere with the partition unless it was necessary to protect the rights of the parties.