real estate law Archives

Can I get compensated for improvements in a partition action (IE- upgrades)? (Code of Civil Procedure section 874.010)

Published on: July 6, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

Underwood-Blog-Images-2-300x300 Yes. A party may be able to receive credits and/or offsets for upgrading a property in a partition action under many circumstances. In a partition lawsuit, two parties disagree about what to do with the jointly-owned property.

In those circumstances, one party can seek the sale of the property and then have the equity divided between all of the owners. Once the property is sold, the parties can make claims to the money left from the proceeds from the house.

One issue that often arises, however, is whether an improvement to the property—as opposed to a repair—is subject to an offset as part of the partition action. For example, if one party remodels a bathroom, would they have the right to an offset for that work?

Continue reading →

Can a property owner testify as to the value of their property in eminent domain? (CCP § 1260.210)

Published on: June 28, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

A lawyer holding her gravel with documents on her desks and beside her is someone holding lots of money.
Yes. But it is a complex affair. Eminent Domain proceedings take on a unique structure with expert testimony as the backbone for the determination of fair market value. Neither side of the litigation has the burden of proof on this issue of just compensation, and unlike the traditional civil court case, the Defendant presents their evidence first. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 1260.210.)

Additionally, judges will often place limits on what a homeowner may testify to and can screen the witness beforehand to ensure that they’ll be employing a valid methodology on the stand. Taken as a whole, the process can be quite daunting to the layperson. This post will therefore look at the common issues and questions which arise regarding testimony in eminent domain.

The Importance of Testimony in Eminent Domain Proceedings

Continue reading →

How does a partition by private sale work? (CCP § 872.720)

Published on: June 24, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

A lawyer writing on a paperwork on his desk in front of his client. Partition by a private sale is a method of selling jointly owned property, either by joint tenants or tenants in common, under the court’s supervision via a court order or a court-ordered referee.

What is a partition lawsuit?

A partition action or a partition lawsuit is when one co-owner, or when one person with interest in the property wants to sell the property, but the other co-owners or others with interest in the property do not want to sell their ownership rights.

Continue reading →

What is the difference between a receiver and a partition referee? (CCP § 873.610)

Published on: June 20, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

Two lawyers having an agreement and signing a paperwork. 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. Their roles are to act as a third party with no ties to any of the co-owners interests in property via a partition lawsuit and to help the court and the judge to distribute the property or proceeds from the sale of the property fairly and equitably. That said, there are enough differences between the two to warrant litigants being put on notice.

At the Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys encounter both partition referees and receivers on a regular basis. We are well-versed in their appointment, associated costs, timelines, and the procedure they become involved in. As such, potential litigants should not hesitate to contact our office so that our team can begin helping you achieve your litigation goals.

What is a Partition Referee?

Continue reading →

How does a court make an accounting when a property is partitioned by division? (CCP § 873.250)

Published on: June 17, 2022 | By Underwood Law Firm, P.C.

A lawyer on his desk signing a document. When there is a court-ordered partition by division, there are several steps that both the court and parties take to ensure that the property is physically divided both equally and equitably. Read on to find out the different avenues the court takes when deciding a partition by division lawsuit.

How does the Court Account for partition by Division?

First, the court operates on the assumed guideline that all parties should have the property divided in the most equal and equitable ways possible. The court in the Canepari v. Pascale court case found that there is a rebuttable presumption that the partitioned property should be equally divided. This means that if each co-owner or tenant holds a 50 percent interest in the property, then the property in question is divided as physically possible to a 50/50 divide.

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 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 →

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 →