More unmarried couples are purchasing houses together than ever, but there can be some dangerous legal implications if they decide to go their separate ways, an expert told Newsweek.
As companies institute return-to-office policies, many couples find themselves needing to live in different locations, complicating the home purchase and mortgage they signed on for.
Read More: Unmarried Couples Locked into Homes
Often times, a person’s estate includes property. While property disputes between co-owners are complicated enough, a property dispute including the estate of a deceased person adds an entirely different layer of complexity to the situation. In these instances, there are special laws that apply to help to clarify the process.
This article will discuss who may bring a partition action on behalf of a deceased person, and address some of the complexities of that process. These complexities arise because of something known as “venue,” or the specific rules relating to the right place or forum to resolve the dispute. In other words, a debate about where to have the debate. Hopefully, this article will clarify that process to simplify what is already an emotionally difficult situation.
Who can sue on behalf of a deceased person
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.
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).)
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.
How does the court appraise the property (CCP § 874.316)?As was noted previously, the court shall order an appraisal of the property once it determines that the parties are entitled to partition. (CCP § 874.316.) But how does that appraisal process work?
Once the court orders the appraisal, it needs to appoint a disinterested and licensed appraiser to value the property as if only one person owned it. This is because properties with multiple ownership interests typically sell for less. Once the appraisal is complete, the appraiser must file it with the court. After this is done, the court must conduct a hearing to determine the property’s fair market value 30 days after notice of the appraisal is sent to each party. (CCP § 874.316 (f).)
As noted previously, the Partition of Real Property Act applies to real property held in tenancy in common where there is no agreement in a record binding all the co-owners related to partition. (CCP § 874.311.) But does that mean its provisions are mandatory in such situations? Case law and legislative history suggest the answer to that question is “yes.”
For one, the Code states that the property “shall” be partitioned under the Partition of Real Property Act unless all of the cotenants (including the defendants to the action) otherwise agree. (CCP § 874.313.) This mirrors the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, which provides that if the property is heirs property, “the property must be partitioned under this act unless all of the cotenants otherwise agree in a record.”
It’s rare that a new law comes along that turns an entire established legal practice on its head. Yet that’s precisely what California’s Partition of Real Property Act intends to do. Revised in 1976, California’s partition laws remained unchanged and untouched for almost fifty years.
In 2021 and 2022, however, the California Legislature passed the Partition of Heirs Property Act, then revised it into the California Partition of Real Property Act. The new statutes in this bill provide a new procedural process for how partitions are conducted in the state, provided the subject property qualifies for its provisions.
While the passage of a new law within a particular legal field is always exciting, it also has its downsides. The Partition of Real Property Act is currently in effect and will continue to apply to specific partition actions filed from this point forward. However, because the law only became active in January of 2023, appellate courts have yet to take a crack at its provisions to aid attorneys and litigants in how they should be interpreted.
A right of first refusal is, essentially, an option contract. It is a contract or a condition in a contract between the owner of an asset, and some other person with an interest in that same asset, that allows the interested person to buy the asset from the owner instead of allowing the owner to sell it to a third party. Put differently, it’s a conditional right to acquire property, depending on the owner’s willingness to sell. (Campbell v. Alger (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 200, 206.)
The classic example is for a long-term lease of a house. There, as part of the lease, the owner provides that the renter has a right of first refusal if they rent for a set amount of years (let’s say five). After those fives years are up, the owner tries to sell the house on the market to a third party. But, because of the right of first refusal, the renter must be allowed to chance to make the same offer as the third party. Only if the renter “refuses” to match the offer is the sale allowed to proceed.
While the concept itself is rather straightforward, there are many legal complexities that can arise when the right is integrated into other actions concerning property, such as eminent domain proceedings, probate sales, and partitions.
California Partition Law Blog