Is It Possible to Bring a Partition Action in Federal Court?

The purpose of this article is to explain how a partition action could be brought in federal court. While it is possible to bring a partition action in a federal court, because of how state-specific partition statutes are, partition matters are usually handled in state courts.

Generally, partition actions are governed by state statutes. Also, a claim for partition is usually resolved by equitable remedies, meaning the court follows equitable principles. (Elbert, Ltd. v. Federated Income Properties (1953) 120 Cal. App. 2d 194, 200.) This means protecting the rights of co-tenants or owners and determining rights in a fair way. The jurisdiction to handle a partition claim and determine equitable remedies is granted by a state constitution or by state or federal statutes. 

These state statutes give state courts jurisdiction to handle partition claims alongside other real estate issues. For example, in California, the California Code of Civil Procedure section 872.110 gives state superior courts jurisdiction to handle partition matters. 

In another instance, in a case on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, the court relied on Arizona partition law to make its determination. The case on appeal came from an Arizona state court, and the state law for partition needed to be specifically applied. (Cuprite Mine Partners LLC v. Anderson (9th Cir. 2015) 809 F.3d 548, 552-553.)

For a court to have jurisdiction over a partition action it must preside over the area where the property is located. (Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) 433 U.S. 186, 207.) This is another reason why partition actions are brought in state courts. Additionally, the need to divide a property through partition frequently arises from familial or relationship disputes. This means the parties to the action and the property are likely to be in the same place. As such, due to the localized nature of partition claims and the interpersonal disputes associated with them, partition claims are almost always pursued in state courts.

How can a Partition Action be brought in a Federal Court?

While partition claims are usually pursued at the state level, it is possible to bring a partition claim in a federal court. Generally, to bring a partition action in federal court there must be diversity jurisdiction. This means the plaintiff and defendant are situated in different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (28 USC § 1332.) For example, if you own property that you want to partition with the resident of a different U.S. state, then the action could need to be brought in a federal district court.

Nevertheless, even where a partition is joined with an action with diversity jurisdiction courts will not necessarily allow it to be tried in federal court. (Dryden v. Dryden (8th Cir. 1959) 265 F.2d 870, 876.) This is because partition claims can be appropriately resolved in state courts.

Notably, 28 U.S.C. section 1441(b)(2), known as the “forum defendant rule,” provides that “[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity] jurisdiction…may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly jointed and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” The Ninth Circuit has held that “the presence of a local defendant at the time removal is sought bars removal.” (Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Court for N.Dist of Cal. (9th Cir. 2004) 393 F.3d 867, 870; accord Lively v. Wild Oats Market, Inc. (9th Cir. 2006) 456 F.3d 933, 939.) As such, removal to a U.S. District Court may be improper under the “forum defendant rule” where the defendant was a citizen of the State of California and therefore a local defendant.” (see Johnson v. Johnson (E.D.Cal. Apr. 24, 2020) 2020 WL 1970065 at * 3.)  

Must a Federal Court hear the Partition Action? 

If a plaintiff does have jurisdiction to bring a partition action in a federal court, the court still can abstain from hearing it. Federal courts can make the decision not to hear a case even if it has jurisdiction over a matter. A court may abstain from hearing a case if there is already a case pending in a state court or if it would interfere with state policy interests. (Burford v. Sun Oil Co. (1943) 319 U.S. 315, 332-334.). 

A court will also abstain if it is a matter that a state is better suited to address. Because of the nature of partition claims, states are usually better suited to address them. The court will generally consider several questions in determining if a state is better suited to address a claim. (Blumenkron v. Multnomah County (9th Cir. 2024) 91 F.4th 1303, 1314-1317.) 

First, the court will consider whether adequate relief was offered or was available to the plaintiff in a state court. Second the court will look at if it is hard to disentangle the issue from state law. Third, the court will consider if important state interests were implicated by the claims. If a party had adequate relief available and the issue is hard to disentangle from state law, and important state interests are implicated the federal court will abstain. This means the court can abstain from exercising its jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim. (Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Thibodaux (1959) 360 U.S. 25, 30.). Because of the state partition statutes there is adequate relief for partition disputes in state courts. Additionally, because of the state-specific nature of the statutes it is hard to disentangle a partition claim from state law.

What is an example of a partition action being brought in federal court?

For example, “Julie” buys a home that was foreclosed upon by a Bank. If the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) wanted to exercise its right of redemption in the property and tried to buy Julie out of the property, Julie could sue for partition in federal court. This is because Julie and the Bank are suing the United States through the IRS.

However, the more likely scenario for a partition action is that Julie and Shawn are divorcing and need to partition their single-family home. In this instance the state partition statutes would apply, and the matter would be resolved in a state court where the property is located.

If Julie and Shawn lived in different states it is unlikely the partition claim would be brought in federal court. While Julie and Shawn being in different states creates diversity jurisdiction, the property at issue is a home that sits in one state. There are also adequate remedies for a partition action at the state level. As such, the case would be tried in state court where the property is located. 

Conclusion

While it is possible to bring a partition action in a federal court, partition matters are usually handled in state courts. State partition statutes grant jurisdiction to state courts and offer parties adequate remedies. Because of the localized nature of partition claims and state-specific partition law, partition claims are almost always pursued in state courts.

The Underwood Law Firm has a team of experienced lawyers who can help resolve your property interest disputes with other co-owners and help you pursue solutions like partition actions. We are here to help.