Shareholder derivative suits are lawsuits that allow and assist shareholders in bringing legal action against the board of directors or officers in a corporate entity for illegal action.
Read on to find out about the relationship between shareholders and derivative suits.
Yes. But it is a complex affair. Eminent Domain proceedings take on a unique structure with expert testimony as the backbone for the determination of fair market value. Neither side of the litigation has the burden of proof on this issue of just compensation, and unlike the traditional civil court case, the Defendant presents their evidence first. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 1260.210.)
Additionally, judges will often place limits on what a homeowner may testify to and can screen the witness beforehand to ensure that they’ll be employing a valid methodology on the stand. Taken as a whole, the process can be quite daunting to the layperson. This post will therefore look at the common issues and questions which arise regarding testimony in eminent domain.
Partition by a private sale is a method of selling jointly owned property, either by joint tenants or tenants in common, under the court’s supervision via a court order or a court-ordered referee.
A partition action or a partition lawsuit is when one co-owner, or when one person with interest in the property wants to sell the property, but the other co-owners or others with interest in the property do not want to sell their ownership rights.
Partition receivers and partition referees serve very similar roles in partition lawsuits. Their roles are to act as a third party with no ties to any of the co-owners interests in property via a partition lawsuit and to help the court and the judge to distribute the property or proceeds from the sale of the property fairly and equitably. Read on to find out the important differences between the two.
A receiver, on occasion, assists the co-owners of the property, and the court in achieving a successful sale or appraisal for the property is partitioned. Receivers are court-appointed in California that oversees actions such as business disputes, divorce cases, judgment collection, and of course, real estate partition cases.
When there is a court-ordered partition by division, there are several steps that both the court and parties take to ensure that the property is physically divided both equally and equitably. Read on to find out the different avenues the court takes when deciding a partition by division lawsuit.
First, the court operates on the assumed guideline that all parties should have the property divided in the most equal and equitable ways possible. The court in the Canepari v. Pascale court case found that there is a rebuttable presumption that the partitioned property should be equally divided. This means that if each co-owner or tenant holds a 50 percent interest in the property, then the property in question is divided as physically possible to a 50/50 divide.
Generally speaking, no, jury trials are not available in partition actions because partition action lawsuits are generally based on equity and therefore do not need a jury trial to decide each party’s rights.
However, in some specific scenarios, it is within the court’s discretion to allow factual issues or claims to the property to be heard by a jury in an equitable action, as is the plaintiff’s constitutional right. Read on to find out the avenues in which jury trials are available for those seeking or defending partition action lawsuits.
Pre-judgment interests are accrued interests on judgment amounts. Eminent domain is when the government “takes” private property for the public’s use and then owes fair and just compensation to the original private property owners. An eminent domain award is the court-ordered judgment amount that is based on the fair market value of the property owed to the private property owner.
Generally speaking, eminent domain awards must be paid out to the private property owner before a property’s title can be transferred or the government can take physical possession of the property. Read on to understand what both pre-judgment interests are and eminent domain awards contain.
Unless the guarantor has an interest in the property, such as a joint tenancy, tenancy in common, or tenancy by the entirety, then no, a guarantor in the property can not sue for partition.
This seems complicated, but if you break down that a guarantor simply acts as collateral against a property mortgage, and those who are eligible to bring a partition action lawsuit must have an actual interest in the property, it starts to make more sense. Read on to find out more about how these two concepts interact in the world of real estate law.
While it is possible for a co-owner to lawfully adversely possess the other tenant’s interest in the property under California law, in practice, it is quite difficult and cumbersome.
If you co-own or are a co-tenant of a shared piece of real estate property, possession is not enough for the court to determine that the other party will lose their rights or their interest in your shared real estate property.
Read on to find out the elements that must be taken and proven in court to have a co-owner lawfully and successfully adversely possess the other tenants’ interest in the property.
Yes, a third party who has an interest in the property in question may “join” in a family law proceeding. In some specific cases, a third party must “join” the family law proceeding.
California codified a third party’s ability to participate in a family law proceeding to assert their interest in real estate by creating the joinder rules. These rules authorize who is allowed to join a family law proceeding other than the two spouses.
California Partition Law Blog
