Underwood Law Firm is a finalist for the California Legal Awards’ Vanguard Award.
Underwood Law Firm is a finalist for the California Legal Awards’ Vanguard Award, honoring firms and companies that have revolutionized their business to stay one step ahead of the current and future forces shaping the legal industry.
The statutory LLC buyout is a special remedy designed for lawsuits seeking to dissolve LLCs. After members of the entity sue to dissolve the business, the other members (all of them or some of them) have the statutory ability to avoid dissolution by buying out the membership interests of these “moving parties.”
However, problems can arise, especially when it comes to setting the buyout value. Additionally, there are some situations where the buyout can actually be terminated altogether. At Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are knowledgeable in the fields of pass-through entities and real property. If you’re looking to proceed with dissolution, then we may be able to help.
When business entities become subject to internal dissension, it’s not uncommon for several members to approach the court system and seek to dissolve the entity. Often, this is in the best interest of all involved.
Sometimes, however, the other members, shareholders, or partners, do not want to let the business go. They feel it can continue to operate. As such, they may invoke a special mandatory buyout to keep the business running. The buyout allows those who want the business to continue to purchase the interests or stocks of those who wish to leave.
For LLCs and Partnerships, the buyout price is determined by the same standard: Fair Market Value. Corporations, on the other hand, conduct buyouts based on “Fair Value.” While this difference may seem minimal, they are ultimately quite different from each other.
In almost all civil litigation in California, a major issue is the formal process of exchanging information and documents that address claims or defenses in dispute between the parties. In this system, discovery is “self-executing.” That means that no party to the lawsuit has any obligation to provide any information, unless requested through the formal methods outlined in the Civil Discovery Act.
That is all potentially about to change. In 2024, next month, Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.090 will take effect. Recently, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 235 that amends two sections of the Code of Civil Procedure so that discovery in State Court becomes more like discovery in Federal Court. These experimental provisions, however, are set to last until January 1, 2027. (CCP § 2016.090(e).)
Before undertaking litigation over real estate in California, title insurance can help to provide clarity as to important ownership questions. Title insurance is not just nice to have, in many instances, the law specifically envisions that the parties will obtain a title report of some type. For example, the Partition Law specifically envisions that the plaintiff will obtain a title report before filing the suit in Code of Civil Procedure section 872.220.
While a title report may be beneficial, a careful partition lawyer will consider going a step further and obtaining some sort of title insurance in order to adequately address any issues that could arise during the lawsuit. Because there are a number of types of insurance that could be obtained, this article will discuss the different options of title insurance available as part of real estate litigation.
Under certain special circumstances, money can be deposited with the court to safeguard during lawsuits under Code of Civil Procedure sections 572 and 573. The justification for such a rule is that, if the court doesn’t protect the money, the other party may spend it, rendering a plaintiff’s victory somewhat hollow.
However, there are several important limitations in place in order for parties to actually utilize section 572. Chief among them is that the money needs to be “the subject of the litigation.” And even if the money does fall into this category, the Court cannot receive the funds until it is proven that the money is being held wrongfully.
Just as there are special provisions for defaulting parties with partitions by sale, so too are there unique rules where some defendants fail to appear in a partition in kind action.
The text of the statute provides that, “if the court orders a partition in kind, the court shall allocate to the cotenants that are unknown, unlocatable, or the subject of a default judgment… a part of the property representing the combined interests of these cotenants as determined by the court.” (CCP § 874.318 (d).)
It is an unfortunate fact that many marriages don’t make it out of the engagement stage. While this can be a difficult time for all involved, the situation can only become more dire when real property is involved.
Commonly, one owner of real property will add their partner to the house’s title shortly before the marriage occurs. Usually, they do this because they are under the impression that the marriage is about to happen. But when the partner calls the marriage off, the property owner is now faced with the problem of title. Under the law, the former partner is now an owner of the property.
In these instances, Civil Code section 1590 allows for the property owner to recover their title, although this will usually require filing a quiet title lawsuit. However, quiet title law can be difficult to understand, and in addition, litigants will need to take care not to blow the applicable statute of limitations.
This is a continuation of our ongoing series on the Complete Guide to the Partition of Real Property Act. For complete comprehension, we would suggest starting from the beginning.
As a quick summary, the Partition of Real Property Act is a law specific to California, passed in July 2022. (Stats 2022 Ch. 82 § 3 (AB 2245).) It brought significant changes to how partitions are conducted in the state, if the underlying parties are tenants in common. But even though the act is particular to California, it is actually derived from the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (“UPHPA”).
Because of the similarity between the laws, and in order to deliver the most comprehensive understanding of the Partition of Real Property Act, this guide references law review notes, statutes, and appellate decisions from other states interpreting the UPHPA.
A declaration of non-monetary status is a special type of court filing reserved for trustees under a deed of trust. These trustees have limited powers, but are often named as defendants in lawsuits by plaintiffs seeking to ensure proper joinder.
Of course, being named in a complaint carries with it several responsibilities, chief among these being that every defendant must issue a responsive pleading, such as an answer. For the trustee included purely as a precautionary measure, this is frustrating. Not only will they need to file an answer, which is both costly and time consuming, but they will also consistently be served with court documents in a case they have no interest in litigating.
To get around this hassle, trustees may file a declaration of non-monetary status, provided the relevant deed of trust is the “subject” of a lawsuit. Successfully filing this declaration means that the trustee no longer needs to participate in the lawsuit, provided the trustee also agrees to be bound by any court order relating to the subject deed of trust.
California Partition Law Blog
