Palo Alto is a charter city in Santa Clara County and was named after a 1,000-year-old coastal redwood tree known as El Palo Alto. Palo Alto is known as the birthplace of Silicon Valley, the headquarters of many major tech companies.
As of February 2025, the median sales price of homes in Palo Alto stands at $3,550,000, with homes remaining on the market for 9 days, according to Redfin. Palo Alto residents who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners.
Often, Partition Lawyers find that joint ownership problems fall into four broad categories:
A partition action is a judicially-supervised forced sale of real estate. In California, each co-owner has an “absolute” right to partition the property. “Ordinarily, if the party seeking partition is shown to be a tenant in common, and as such entitled to the possession of the land sought to be partitioned, the right to partition is absolute, and cannot be denied, ‘either because of any supposed difficulty, nor on the suggestion that the interest of the co-tenants will be promoted by refusing the application nor temporarily postponing the action.” (Priddel v. Shankie (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 319, 325 (emphasis added).) Thus, any owner of real estate (whether 5%, 50%, or 95%) has the right to bring a partition action in California.
Basically, any person who is an owner of real estate can bring a partition action in California. Code of Civil Procedure section 872.710, subdivision (a), states “A partition action may be commenced and maintained by any…owner of…such property.” California Civil Code section 872.210 provides a property owner with the “absolute right to partition” absent a valid waiver. Thus, a partition action can be brought by anyone who no longer wants to own jointly owned real estate, other than spousal property. The best Palo Alto Partition Lawyer will be able to share information on this process with you.
Generally, the first step in the partition lawsuit process is not a lawsuit, but an earnest attempt to resolve the matter informally, such as through a partition agreement. Only when it is clear that litigation is the only option, is it clear that a partition lawsuit is appropriate.
When it is clear that a partition lawsuit is necessary, then the process begins with the filing of a complaint in the county where the property is located. There are several technical requirements for the partition complaint, and many important steps that must be taken during the lawsuit to ensure that the process is managed effectively.
In a partition lawsuit, there are generally four different steps. First, the court determines each party’s ownership interests. Second, the court will decide on the manner of sale. Third, the court will order the property be sold. Fourth, the proceeds from the sale will be divided between the parties based on their relative contributions to the property.
While some may believe that inherited property cannot be partitioned, this is incorrect. Instead, when the property is owned as the result of an inheritance, there may be an additional step for an appraisal, and a right of first refusal, as provided by the Uniform Partition of Heirs Act. Under this act, where a co-tenant requests partition by sale, the law gives the non-partition owner the option to buy all of the interests of the co-tenants who requested the sale. A top Palo Alto Partition lawyer will be familiar with the process.
The Court may award attorneys’ fees in the partition action that are paid by a party to the action for the common benefit of all the co-owners. (CCP § 872.010.) The Supreme Court has spoken on this issue directly, holding that under former section 796, the predecessor to the current partition cost statute, “counsel fees may be allowed … for services rendered for the common benefit even in contested partition suits.” (Capuccio v. Caire (1932) 215 Cal. 518, 528-529 (Capuccio).)
Moreover, cases interpreting those sections continue to permit the allocation of attorney fees in contested partition actions. (Forrest v. Elam (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 164, 174.) From these authorities it is evident that the “common benefit” in a partition action is the proper distribution of the “‘respective shares and interests in said property by the ultimate judgment of the court.’ ” (Capuccio, 215 Cal. at p. 528.) This sometimes will require that “ ‘controversies’ ” be “ ‘litigated’ ” to correctly determine those shares and interests but this ultimately can be for the common benefit as well. The fact that a party resists the partition does not change this. (See Randell v. Randell (1935) 4 Cal.2d 575, 582 [“The presence and litigation of controversial issues between all the parties does not preclude the allowance of attorney’s fees for services connected with such issues where such services are found to be for the common benefit of the parties.”].) A knowledgeable Palo Alto Partition Attorney will be able to give you good advice on these issues.
A partition action frequently involves disputes related to the allowance for improvements by one joint owner or the other. The court may, in all partition cases, make an order for an allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory judgment among the parties in accordance with the principles of equity. (CCP § 872.140.) For instance, the court may make an equitable adjustment in order to offset the use value of the property against the improvement expenses. (see Hunter v. Schultz (1966) 240 Cal.App. 2d 24, 31.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 872.140 allows the court to make such orders for compensatory adjustments for items such as common improvements, unaccounted rents and profits, and other matters where contribution may be required. (Cal. L. Rev. Comm. Comment to CCP § 872.140.) An example of these types of improvements could be for remodeling a bathroom, rebuilding a deck, or painting the outside of the house. The property must be divided in a manner that allocates an individual any part that he or she has improved or that individual’s predecessor in interest, to the extent that it is practical and can be done without materially injuring the rights of the other co-owners. The determination of a division of allocation does not include the value of the improvements. (CCP § 873.220.) An experienced Palo Alto Partition Attorney will be intimately familiar with these matters.
A partition is a legal procedure in which the court shall segregate and terminate the common interests in a piece of real property. Generally, when the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a partition by sale, the court shall issue an interlocutory judgment determining each party’s interest and order the property be sold and proceeds divided among parties in accordance with their interests. (CCP § 872.820.) In order to allow partition, the parties’ ownership of the property must be determined. The following paragraphs discuss how fraudulently removing someone from the title will not result in total ownership of a property. (Alvarez. v. Alvarez (2023) 2023 WL 4781892.)
Christian and Mari Alvarez were former romantic partners. They were married in 1998 and divorced in 2007. They reconciled in 2008. Mari alleged instead of getting remarried they made an oral agreement to financially support each other if one party’s share of joint property was insufficient to provide them with sufficient living expenses. They also agreed all their property, including real property, was joint property. Mari also alleged in 2008, Christian promised her that if she used her connections to get him a job in the longshoreman community, he would support her for the rest of her life. Mari relied on this assertion and helped him get the job. They purchased a home together in 2010 as tenants in common. Mari paid $6,000 of the $11,000 down payment and paid the first two years of the mortgage on the property. The parties then allegedly agreed to have Christian pay the mortgage while Mari would pay for all other living expenses like bills and groceries. Mari also alleged she paid the expenses and rendered her domestic services throughout their relationship.
Mari executed a quitclaim deed in 2012 granting exclusive title to Christian. Mari alleged she did this because Christian falsely told her it was the only way to refinance the property and that it had no other significance regarding their ownership of the home. They both lived in the home until May 2020 when they ended their relationship. Mari asked that Christian buy her out of the property. She alleged Christian then disclosed that he intended to use the quitclaim deed to rob her of her interest and refused to provide her with any other financial support. Christian asked Mari to move out following the end of their relationship, saying he owned the house exclusively. Mari refused to leave, and Christian began unlawful detainer proceedings against her.
Mari filed a suit against Christian arguing he fraudulently induced her to execute the quitclaim deed in 2012. The unlawful detainer proceedings were stayed. Mari brought claims of quiet title, partition, constructive trust, breach of contract, fraud, and others. Christian filed a demurrer and special motion to strike the complaint. The demurrer was overruled, and the motion was denied. The trial court held Christian did not meet the threshold showing Christian’s right of petition or free speech was violated. Mari did not file a lawsuit just because Christian had filed an unlawful detainer. It was because he had fraudulently removed her from the property’s title. As such, Christian appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Second District.
The court of appeal held Christian could not appeal the order overruling the demurrer. He failed to raise it in his opening brief and therefore forfeited it. The court of appeal also held the trial court properly denied Christian’s motion to strike based on the anti-SLAPP statute. The purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute is to protect defendants from legal action taken against them as a result of bringing suit or otherwise targeting their free speech. This allows defendants to bring a special motion to strike. Christian could not show that Mari’s action arose from protected activity. While filing an unlawful detainer action is protected, he fails to show her claims come from that unlawful detainer action. Here Mari’s claims only arose from the alleged violation of the 2008 oral agreement for financial support, violation of a mutual understanding that all property would be joint property and the alleged fraud in getting Mari to sign the quitclaim deed. The court held the unlawful detainer and its being mentioned in the complaint is just context for her claims and not meant to support a claim for recover. While she needed to retain an attorney to defend from the unlawful detainer action that action was collateral to the alleged fraud. Christian also alleged Mari filed the lawsuit to attach the propriety of the unlawful detainer action. At most the lawsuit was triggered by Christian’s action. The fact that a lawsuit was filed after protected activity does not establish the complaint arose from protected activity. An action can be triggered by the protected activity without arising from the protected activity.
Ultimately because Christian had made fraudulent promises to Mari causing her to sign the quitclaim deed, he fraudulently obtained full ownership of the property. If someone relies on a false promise affecting title to property, the legitimacy of that transfer or sale may be questioned by the court.
A court’s determination of how property interests are divided is to be conducted depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Factors such as fraud and reliance on prior agreements can ultimately affect the outcome of a case determining property interests. If you are considering partition as an option, or find yourself defending one, then you may benefit from good legal advice on the topic. Please contact Underwood Law Firm, P.C., for an initial consultation.
Learn more here.