The California Partition Law begins at Code of Civil Procedure section 872.010 and ends at Code of Civil Procedure section 874.323. Section 872.220 requires that the plaintiff state the existence and location of a title report if they have procured one. A title report includes a preliminary report, guarantee, binder, or policy of title insurance. (CCP § 872.010 subd. (e).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 872.220 states
If it is necessary to have a title report:
Generally, the seller of a home has disclosures that they are required by law to make to any prospective buyer. This also applies to the realtor, broker, or any other agent working for the seller to sell the home. Different types of sales, however, may have varying disclosure requirements. Generally speaking, trustee’s sales, probate sales, and foreclosures sales are exempt from the California statutory disclosure requirements. All sales, however, are subject to the disclosure requirements under California common law.
If the seller is being represented by an agent in the transaction, then the agent must ask the seller about the condition of the property and fill out the form accordingly. (Civil Code § 1102.6.) The agent must also complete a reasonable and diligent visual inspection of the property and note on the disclosure form if there are any items for disclosure. (Id.) The seller or the agent can also amend any disclosures in writing. (Civil Code § 1102.9.)
Oftentimes, the government will announce a public project which may affect the neighboring property’s value. Most of the time, the public project should increase the property’s value. Sometimes though, the announced public project may decrease the property’s value, which may make it difficult to rent the property. When that happens, the property owner may be able to sue for what is known as “Klopping damages”. This allows the owner to recover lost rental income due to the decrease in value from a public project.
The California Supreme Court case that set the rule for Klopping damages was Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39. In Klopping, the city of Whittier planned to form a parking district. (Id., at 42.) The plaintiffs, Klopping and Sarff, owned properties that were going to be condemned for the project.
Ejectment is an action brought by a party seeking to recover a possessory interest or claim of title in a piece of real property. Typically, an ejectment action arises when a titleholder to a piece of property has been wrongfully excluded or withheld from the property. Therefore, ejectment applies only to those cases where an individual actually has possessory title to the subject property.
Ejectment is a possessory action used to recover possession of land or a piece of real property to a plaintiff in possession who has been wrongfully ousted from the property by the defendant. (Fuller v. Fuller (1917) 176 Cal. 637, 638, 169 P. 369].) In simpler terms, ejectment allows a party to retake possession of real property that the party was wrongfully removed from.
A claim of ejectment is a common issue in disputes over the real property where the parties are seeking to establish who holds title to or an interest in the subject property. Specifically, under Code of Civil Procedure section 3375, an individual who is entitled to specific real property may recover by a judgment for its possession or an order requiring a defendant to deliver possession of the property. (CCP § 3375.) At Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are more than familiar with ejectment actions and the requirements needed to prevail on an ejectment claim.
Not all eminent domain proceedings involve the government taking an entire piece of property. If the property is large enough and the government’s project is limited in scope (expanding a road, for instance), then the government can instead opt for a “partial” taking of the property.
Despite this difference, partial takings are nonetheless subject to the requirement of just compensation for property owners. And in addition, property owners may be entitled to special damages if the government project diminishes the fair market value of the rest of the property.
Eminent domain is, however, one of the more difficult fields to navigate in litigation. This is in no small part due to the many evidentiary hurdles in place that make proving the right amount of just compensation a timely and expensive process. At Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are more than familiar with overcoming these evidentiary roadblocks and are ready to help assist you with your litigation efforts.
The significance of the differences between legal and equitable title is an outright confusing topic, requiring some knowledge of constructive trusts, beneficial interests, and seller’s liens. That said, the concept can be made digestible by boiling it down to its essential elements. When done, this simplification reveals how often we encounter both types of titles in common real estate transactions.
At its core, the difference between these titles contains significance only insofar as there are multiple interested parties in the same property. When this is the case, the law creates a legal fiction of sorts, assigning the beneficial use of the property to the “equitable” titleholder and the legal power over the property to the “legal” titleholder.
The explanation is, in reality, much more complex, but the attorneys at Underwood Law are more than familiar with the ins and outs of title disputes and are here to help navigate you through your real estate lawsuit.
Writs of possession are special statutory remedies that usually appear in unlawful detainer actions. As their name implies, they are a means of recovering possession from someone who is wrongfully occupying a property. Writs are unique, however, in that they are almost exclusively a post-judgment tool.
This means that there must be a court judgment, order, or decree already in place that entitles a party to possession of the property. Only then can said party apply for and obtain a writ, allowing them to kick the wrongful occupants out of the house.
At Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are familiar with writs of possession and the inherent difficulties in obtaining them. When a property is on the line, we understand what needs to be done and are prepared to assist you in achieving your litigation goals, whatever they may be.
Eminent Domain proceedings will almost always end with the government taking title to private property after it pays out “just compensation” to a homeowner.
But sometimes, the government begins condemnation proceedings against the backdrop of a large project with encroaching deadlines. In these instances, California law allows the entity to obtain possession of the property early on in the condemnation process, granting the government the ability to begin its work sooner rather than later.
That said, there are numerous requirements that the government must fulfill in order to obtain pre-judgment possession. And even when the government meets its burden, defendant property owners can still oppose early possession by meeting various showings of hardship.
A lis pendens – also called a notice of pendency of action – is a special type of legal document filed with a county recorder. Though its use is limited to lawsuits involving real property claims, its effect is powerful. Once recorded, it acts as “constructive notice” to all persons who would subsequently acquire an interest in the property at issue that a lawsuit is occurring.
This small legal tool, however, can sometimes prove itself to be subtlety abusive. When bad-faith litigants file them, they essentially act as injunctions against encumbrances and sales of property, drastically affecting the rights that property owners should have.
For this reason, litigants have the option to expunge a lis pendens outright, though it is no light undertaking. At Underwood Law Firm, our expert attorneys are more than knowledgeable on expungement motions and their intricacies and are prepared to assist you in your real estate litigation.
A “quiet title” action is a lawsuit where a property owner seeks to eliminate, establish, resolve, and “quiet” any other claims on the same property by anyone else. Once complete, the lawsuit will result in a perfect title enforceable in the courts. A quiet title action is thus an effective tool to establish and settle ownership over real estate.
Quiet title judgments are particularly powerful, however, and therefore involve more stringent requirements than other lawsuits in the real estate field. At Underwood Law, our attorneys are familiar with handling the complexities of quiet title actions and are here to help navigate you through this unique lawsuit.
California Partition Law Blog