Carson Partition Lawyer

The City of Carson was named after George Henry Carson, who was married to the daughter of Don Manuel Dominguez, a prominent landowner and owner of the town's land. After Dominguez's death, Carson took over the rancho's management. Today, the city is located in Los Angeles County and is home to factories, refineries, and other industrial buildings. It is also more famously home to a soccer stadium used by the Los Angeles Galaxy soccer team. According to Redfin, In June 2023, Carson home prices were down 11.6% compared to last year, selling for a median price of $730K. On average, homes in Carson sell after 32 days on the market compared to 27 days last year. There were 30 homes sold in June this year, down from 36 last year. With over 70% of owner-occupied housing units, this suggests that many Carson homes are jointly owned. Generally, a partition action is the best remedy for disputing co-owners in four broad categories:

• Split ownership real estate dispute;
• Brother-Sister real estate dispute;
• Investor-Investor real estate dispute; and
• Significant other real estate dispute

Partition is a court-ordered process where a property owner forces a sale of jointly owned real estate. Essentially, a partition action exists to allows people who own real estate together to take their share of the equity and go their separate ways. But, as simple as this seems, partition actions can often become complex lawsuits. Disputes commonly arise as to what type of partition may be sought and the process for determining ownership interests.

For example, “Julie” bought a house with her boyfriend, “Shawn,” thinking that they would get married one day. Later, after they had bought the house, Julie realized that her boyfriend was not the right person for her. Because Julie wanted to move on in her life, she also wanted to sell the house she bought with her boyfriend. Her boyfriend, however, was mad at Julie for breaking up with him, and so refused to agree to sell the house. Because they were not married, Julie could not go to a divorce lawyer, and because they both did not agree to sell, a realtor could not help Julie. Julie felt trapped. Julie then, however, found a partition lawyer and was able to get the house sold so she could move on with her life. A partition lawyer got the job done. The best Carson Partition Lawyer will be able to share information on this process with you.

First, a partition action is filed. A partition action can be filed if one co-owner of real property or a piece of real estate wishes to sell the property or piece of real estate in question but the other co-owners or co-tenants do not wish to sell their ownership rights. 

Second, the court may appoint a court referee to oversee the sale of the property in question. The sales procedure includes that all parties agree to the terms and conditions of the sale in writing. If the parties can not agree, as partition actions are usually very contested issues, then the referee that the court appointed may recommend terms and conditions to the court. Then the court will hold a hearing to decide whether or not to accept those terms and conditions. 

Third, in California, the property’s value will be appraised via a third party or another property appraisal with no ties to any of the parties. While this is not required in all states, it is recommended to make sure that all parties are on the same metaphorical page as to the potential sale proceeds of the property in question. 

Fourth, the referee will conduct the sale in the method most agreeable to all of the party’s goals. This can be via a public auction or a private sale. Regardless of the specific method of partition by sale, the court will determine if the sale was “fair.” If it is decided that the property’s sale proceeds had a lack of proper notice, the sale amount is not within reasonable the value of the property, or if the proceeds were unfair- the court would rule that the property will be up for sale again. 

Lastly, the court will order that the proceeds of the sale, minus any court litigated or approved offsets or costs, will be distributed equitably amongst all of the co-owners or people with interest in the property. A top Carson Partition lawyer will be familiar with the process.

A partition action can always be resolved informally at any time prior to the first day of trial, or entry of judgment. In fact, in numerous instances, just filing the partition itself leads the other party to seek a resolution between them. We always encourage the parties to talk throughout every phase of the process, as that can lead to the best outcomes for everyone.

From our perspective, every piece of litigation is just part of a larger “negotiation.” In any negotiation, the party who has the best leverage is usually able to achieve a more favorable outcome. The lawsuit provides the client with more leverage because they have more options available to them than without the prospect of a resolution from a judge. As such, all that a lawsuit does is provide one party with more leverage in the negotiation about how to resolve the dispute. For this reason, the best way to informally resolve a dispute is to combine discussions with active litigation, so that the matter can be quickly resolved without unnecessary expense. Throughout the process, our attorneys are in touch with our clients about their options and the prospects for informal resolution through mediation or negotiation. A knowledgeable Carson Partition Attorney will be able to give you good advice on these issues.

Code of Civil Procedure section 874.140 states that the “court may, in all cases, order allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustments among the parties according to the principles of equity.” 

The court in Hunter v. Schultz (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 24 stated that the payments for interest, taxes, and insurance made by any co-tenant could be subject to reimbursement. These claims for reimbursement are commonly known as “offsets” in a partition action. 

Further, the court under Milian v. De Leon (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1185, announced that a co-tenant who expends money for the preservation of the property, or with the [acceptance] of their co-tenant(s), is entitled to reimbursement for those expenditures before the division of the proceeds among the property owners. 

That is, the general rule is that compensatory adjustments are appropriate for improvements that enhance the value of the property for all owners’ benefit. (see Wallace v. Daley (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1035-1036.) An experienced Carson Partition Attorney will be intimately familiar with these matters.

Code of Civil Procedure section 874.140 states that the “court may, in all cases, order allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustments among the parties according to the principles of equity.” 

The court in Hunter v. Schultz (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 24 stated that the payments for interest, taxes, and insurance made by any co-tenant could be subject to reimbursement. These claims for reimbursement are commonly known as “offsets” in a partition action. 

Further, the court under Milian v. De Leon (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1185, announced that a co-tenant who expends money for the preservation of the property, or with the [acceptance] of their co-tenant(s), is entitled to reimbursement for those expenditures before the division of the proceeds among the property owners. 

That is, the general rule is that compensatory adjustments are appropriate for improvements that enhance the value of the property for all owners’ benefit. (see Wallace v. Daley (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1035-1036.) An experienced Carson Partition Attorney will be intimately familiar with these matters.

When a party prevails on a partition action, the court may order an “allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustment among the parties according to the principles of equity”. (CCP § 872.140). The following paragraphs discuss how the Court of Appeal determines whether a trial court erred ordering an accounting when one was not requested in the complaint, and ordering a constructive trust in Medina v. Di Pieri (2019) 2019 WL 1236384.

In Medina, Eric Medina and Kasandra Di Pieri purchased a home together before they were expected to get married. Since Medina had poor credit, they took title in Di Pieri’s name. They agreed that Medina would contribute $20,000 toward the purchase of the house as part of the down payment and Di Pieri would make the first 10 monthly payments on the promissory note secured by the deed of trust on the house. Once Medina’s credit improved, Di Pieri would put his name on the title. The home was purchased on April 25, 2012.

Medina and Di Pieri married in July 2012. For the first ten months Di Pieri made payments on the note, and then after that, the couple jointly paid. Di Pieri used her savings and salary from her personal checking account to pay for her portion, and continued to contribute to the payments until September or November 2013, when she stopped working and went back to school. Medina subsequently took over the payments and maintained the property. Di Pieri also spent $57,155, which she received from her mother or her mother’s trust to add a swimming pool to the property.

In September 2014, Di Pieri moved out of the house and filed for divorce. The family court entered a judgment of dissolution in December 2016. Medina filed an action for partition in July 2015. His first cause of action was for breach of contract, alleging that he and Di Pieri entered into an oral agreement to purchase the property, and Di Pieri breached the agreement by claiming, after she moved out of the house, that she owned 100 percent of the property. He also claimed cause of actions for fraud, quiet title, imposition of a constructive trust, declaratory relief, and partition.

The trial court ruled in favor of Di Pieri and against Medina on the first cause of action for breach of contract, ruling it was barred by the statute of frauds, and on the cause of action for fraud, finding that Di Pieri did not make any fraudulent misrepresentations. As to the constructive trust the court ruled in favor of Medina finding there was a confidential relationship and therefore there was a violation of a Trust.

On the cause of action for quiet title and declaratory relief, the trial court ruled that Medina was 50 percent owner in the property, and ordered a partition by sale. The trial court awarded Di Pieri $83,198 from the sale proceeds, and Medina $122.816, representing their credits towards the home. Di Pieri appealed.

Di Pieri challenged the accounting of credits made by the trial court but not the portion of the judgment ordering the partition by sale, so the Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed that judgment. The unchallenged portions of the judgment (quiet title, declaratory relief) were also affirmed. Therefore, the main contention that the Court of Appeal addresses is an accounting and the judgment on the fourth cause of action, imposing a constructive trust.

Di Pieri objected to the credit the trial court gave Medina because Medina did not ask for these amounts in his complaint, and the $20,000 he paid was equalized by the 10 monthly payments she made. The Court of Appeal states that a partition is an equitable remedy that includes an accounting. The court can order an accounting, whether the partition is by division or by sale, regardless of whether the complaint asks for it. (Sears v. Rule (1945) 27 Cal.2d 131, 149, 163 P.2d 443). The accounting includes contributions from the parties for the down payment on a property, payments on a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on the property, and improvements to the property. (See Wallace v. Daley, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1035-1036, 270 Cal.Rptr. 85). So, therefore, contrary to Di Pieri’s assertion, the trial court has authority to calculate and award credits to Di Pieri and Median for their contributions to the purchase, maintenance, and improvement of the property.

As to the argument that the trial court erred in imposing a constructive trust on the property, the Court of Appeal found that the argument had merit. The Court begins by distinguishing that a constructive trust is not a cause of action; it is a remedy. The court further notes that: Before a constructive trust can be imposed, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's acquisition of the property was wrongful.” (PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, at p. 398, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 516; see In re Marriage of Chapman, at p. 722,.)

There was no evidence that Di Pieri did anything wrong to Medina. She did not acquire or hold property that was his, he agreed to put the property in her name and benefited from those actions. Additionally, the Court of Appeal found that there was not cause of action on which the court could have even imposed a constructive trust. Medina based his request on Di Pieri’s alleged fraud, but Medina lost on that cause of action. Medina also did not assert a cause of action for breach of trust, fiduciary duty, or confidential relationship.

While the issue had little impact as the property was to be sold in any event, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in imposing a constructive trust. The judgment was reversed with instructions to the trial court to vacate the judgment and enter a new one in favor of Di Pieri on Medina’s causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and constructive trust.

A court’s determination of ownership interests in a property depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Factors such as agreements and who pays for certain expenses for the property can ultimately affect the outcome of a partition case. If you are considering partition as an option, or find yourself defending one, then you may benefit from good legal advice on the topic. Please contact Underwood Law Firm, P.C., for an initial consultation.

Learn more here.