California Partition Law Blog
An action to quiet title allows a litigant to clear title or have the court establish title to a piece of real property where the title to that property is in the issue. Moreover, a quiet title action is not solely for the purpose of establishing a legal interest in real property but can also be asserted to establish an equitable interest in real property. For example, when two people claim that they own an entire piece of property, one of those parties may file a quiet title action to determine which one of the two persons actually holds title to the property.
Sometimes, however, the other party will refuse to participate in the lawsuit, which requires a party to win by “default.” In those circumstances, a question arises about what is necessary to do to succeed. The law explicitly addresses these circumstances.
Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 764.010 provides: “The court shall examine into and determine the plaintiff’s title against the claims of all the defendants. The court shall not enter judgment by default but shall, in all cases, require evidence of the plaintiff’s title and hear such evidence as may be offered to respect the claims of any of the defendants, other than claims the validity of which is admitted by the plaintiff in the complaint. The court shall render judgment in accordance with the evidence and the law.”
Yes, although the tenant is not allowed to exclude the non-consenting owners. The reason for this is grounded in ancient legal doctrine regarding the “right to possession” that all co-owners of property share together. Each owner may exercise this right, and each may grant it to a third party, should they so choose, even without the consent of the other owners. 
While it may not be obvious, a sizeable portion of the work that real estate agents and realtors do is court-ordered. Real estate law is a massive field, and often, the disposition of litigation results in the court forcing the sale of a property, be it a business, home, 
Receivers and partitions referees are cut from the same cloth. In actions involving property, they step in at the request of the parties or order of the court to properly dispose of or manage the property at issue. That said, there are enough differences between the two to warrant litigants being put on notice. 
An action for accounting is an equitable action seeking to determine the amount owed to the parties of an action when damages are uncertain. “An accounting is an equitable proceeding which is proper where there is an unliquidated and unascertained amount owing that cannot be determined without an examination of the debits and credits on the books to determine what is due and owing.” (
A motion to determine title is a motion to the court requesting that the court establish title to a piece of real property. Typically, a motion to determine title shows up in the court as a quiet title action. A quiet title action is brought when a litigant seeks to establish that they have an ownership interest in the subject property and refute any adverse claims against the litigant. It follows that to prevail on a motion to determine title; one must show that they hold some ownership interest in the subject property. 
When there are two or more owners of a piece of real property who are unable to come to an agreement on how to divide the property, any co-owner of the subject property may petition the court to partition the property. This is known as a partition action. Generally, the decision of a court to partition the property is merely the first step in the partition process. Although a partition action may sound quite simple, it is a complex process that requires extensive accounting and patience. 
In California, property subject to a trust can be partitioned, though with some additional wrinkles to the regular partition process. Because trusts can often involve successive estates with future and present property interests, litigants should take care to understand the law regarding trusts before beginning such an action.