California Partition Law Blog

Can a guarantor in the property sue for partition?

Published on: June 3, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

An unbalanced scale on a desk 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.

What is a guarantor?

Continue reading →

Can a co-owner lawfully adverse possess the other tenant’s interest in the property? (Civ. Code § 683)

Published on: June 1, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

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.

Can a co-owner lawfully adverse possess the other tenant’s interest in the property? Blog Image for Underwood Law Firm, P.C. 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.

Continue reading →

Can a third party be joined in a family law proceeding to sell a property?

Published on: May 30, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

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.

Who can join a family law proceeding?

Continue reading →

Can a property owner sue for inverse condemnation when the government refuses to permit development?

Published on: May 27, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

In certain situations, it is possible for a property owner to sue the government for inverse condemnation when the government refuses to permit development and that refusal results in a “taking” under the United States constitution.

If the city, state, or federal government refuses to permit development, it must take away all or substantially all the reasonable use of the property in order to form the legal basis for an inverse condemnation lawsuit. Then, the basis for inverse condemnation is formed on the basis of the government’s refusal to permit development, and this can be a powerful legal remedy for property owners.

The lack of reasonable use of the property is viewed with consideration of all of the impact on the personal landowner’s land in order to substantiate an inverse condemnation claim against the government.

Continue reading →

Can someone foreclose on a property during a partition action?

Published on: May 25, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

While the brief answer is “yes,” the issue is a bit complicated, like many things in the real estate litigation world.

Who is a proper party to a partition action?

Generally, any person claiming an interest in a piece of real estate must be joined in the action in order to fully settle all issues with respect to that property. If a person is not joined, then the court case is not binding, or res judicata, with respect to that person. As such, a partition action includes not only all title owners but also any companies claiming a mortgage interest.

Continue reading →

Can Rent Control Laws Prevent a Partition Eviction? (Civ. Code § 1632)

Published on: May 21, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

No, rent control laws cannot prevent a partition eviction. However, the answer is a bit more complicated than one might think. There are very specific rules and regulations in California that regulate both rent control laws and partition action evictions. Read on to learn more.

What is Rent Control?

While the benefits of rent control vary state-to-state, the regulations of each state’s rent control laws and regulations seek to restrict how much a landlord can raise prices on rent, restrict eviction against long-term tenants, and protect the tenant from rising costs associated with renting the landlord’s property.

Continue reading →

Does an equitable owner have a right to partition property? (CCP § 872.210)

Published on: November 24, 2021 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

stacked of books on a desk
When a title owner sues to partition the property, then the matter is relatively straightforward. On the other hand, when a person claims to be an owner of the property but does not appear on the title, can they still sue to partition the property?

Who can sue for partition?

A legal titleholder—as well as the holder of an equitable title to an undivided interest—may sue to establish his or her right and to obtain a division of the common property. (Varni v. Devoto (1909) 10 Cal.App. 304.) Not all equitable titles, however, are created equal. Indeed, the partition statute explicitly lists the types of equitable interests that may have a right to seek recourse through the partition.

Continue reading →

What types of uses are favored for Surplus Land? (Gov. Code § 54220)

Published on: November 22, 2021 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

A big house facade with a garden on its lawn
Everyone agrees that there is a shortage of affordable housing in California. There are many possible solutions to this problem, one of the solutions was the Legislature’s passage of AB 1486.

What is the purpose of the Surplus Land Act?

Government Code section 54220 sets the stage for the other provisions of the Surplus Land Act.

Continue reading →

Can You Recover from Pre-Condemnation Activity? (First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County (1987) 482 U.S. 304, 316-322)

Published on: November 22, 2021 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

A lawyer's desk with scales in front and a lawyer's signing a paperwork behind it.
The acquisition of private property for eminent domain usually proceeds on a long timeline. Before the government actually uses eminent domain to acquire private property, there is a substantial amount of planning. During the pre-condemnation period, which can stretch for years, a governmental entity often has the opportunity to make land use decisions about the property that it intends to acquire.

While there is nothing out of the ordinary with making land use decisions pending condemnation, per se, it can become problematic when those decisions lower the value of the land that will eventually be taken. In those situations, there is a question about whether the property owner in that situation can recover from the diminution in value.

Unreasonable Delay is Compensable

Continue reading →

What Is a Partition Agreement? (CCP § 872.710)

Published on: November 21, 2021 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

A lawyer signing a paperwork on his desk
One reason partition actions are a good option is that there is generally an absolute right to partition, but every rule has exceptions. In a partition action, the main exception is when the parties have executed a partition agreement. Generally, the right to partition can be waived by an express—or implied—an agreement between co-tenants. (CCP § 872.710; Penasquitos, Inc. v. Holladay (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 356, 358.)

What is required for a partition agreement?

A partition agreement may be an express statement that the right to partition is waived. It may also be evidenced by a right of first refusal where one co-tenant is required to offer the property for sale to another co-tenant as a condition precedent to an action for partition. (Harrison v. Domergue (1969) 2724 Cal.App.2d 19, 21.)

Continue reading →