Alameda Partition Lawyers

Alameda is a unique island city, known for its Victorian-themed architecture and rich maritime history. The name “Alameda’ is Spanish for “tree-lined path” as the city was built in an area part of one of the largest coastal oak forests in the world.

As of February 2025, the median sales price of homes in Alameda stands at $1,225,000, with homes remaining on the market for 14 days, according to Redfin. Alameda residents who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners.

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

What Is a Partition Action

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 Alameda Partition Lawyer will be able to share information on this process with you.

What Are the Steps in a Partition Action?

Broadly, a partition action has only relatively simple steps. First, a party files a lawsuit to establish their rights to the property and desire to sell the property. Second, the court determines that the property should be sold, and appoints an appraiser to appraise the property and offer the other owner the opportunity to buy out the interest. Third, if the other fails to do so, then the Court appoints a “partition referee” (who is frequently a licensed Realtor) to sell the property, and they market and sell the property and deposits the proceeds into a trust account. Fourth, the court determines how much each party should receive from the proceeds, which should include addressing offsets and claims for contribution in an “accounting.” A top Alameda Partition lawyer will be familiar with the process.

Can You Recover Attorney’s Fees In A Partition Action

The Court may award attorneys’ fees in the partition action that are paid by a party to the action for the common benefit of all the co-owners. (CCP § 872.010.) The Supreme Court has spoken on this issue directly, holding that under former section 796, the predecessor to the current partition cost statute, “counsel fees may be allowed … for services rendered for the common benefit even in contested partition suits.” (Capuccio v. Caire (1932) 215 Cal. 518, 528-529 (Capuccio).)

Moreover, cases interpreting those sections continue to permit the allocation of attorney fees in contested partition actions. (Forrest v. Elam (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 164, 174.) From these authorities it is evident that the “common benefit” in a partition action is the proper distribution of the “‘respective shares and interests in said property by the ultimate judgment of the court.’ ” (Capuccio, 215 Cal. at p. 528.) This sometimes will require that “ ‘controversies’ ” be “ ‘litigated’ ” to correctly determine those shares and interests but this ultimately can be for the common benefit as well. The fact that a party resists the partition does not change this. (See Randell v. Randell (1935) 4 Cal.2d 575, 582 [“The presence and litigation of controversial issues between all the parties does not preclude the allowance of attorney’s fees for services connected with such issues where such services are found to be for the common benefit of the parties.”].) A knowledgeable Alameda Partition Attorney will be able to give you good advice on these issues.

What Are Claims for Contribution?

Before the sales proceeds are distributed among the parties, a court-ordered accounting will determine the charges and credits upon each co-owner’s interest. These credits are taken out of the net proceeds before the balance is divided equally. (Southern Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Nelson (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 539 (“Nelson”).) 

“When a cotenant makes advances from his own pocket to preserve the common estate, his investment in the property increases by the entire amount advanced. Upon sale of the estate, he is entitled to his reimbursement before the balance is equally divided.” (Nelson, 230 Cal.App.2d, at p. 541, citing William v. Koyer (1914) 168 Cal.369.)

As such, a party to a partition action must produce and gather their evidence and make sure that it is presented to the court so they can receive full credit for the value that they have added to the property. While a party may have a right to these credits under the law, ultimately, they will not be counted unless they can be presented in the proper form. An experienced Alameda Partition Attorney will be intimately familiar with these matters.

A Partition Case Study: Dilonell v. Chandler (2024)

A partition is a legal procedure in which the court shall segregate and terminate the common interests in a piece of real property. Generally, when the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a partition by sale, the court shall issue an interlocutory judgment determining each party’s interest and order the property be sold and proceeds divided among parties in accordance with their interests. (CCP § 872.820.) A partition by sale will be ordered if partition by division of the property would be less equitable. (CCP § 872.820 (b).) The following paragraphs discuss how the court determines the parties’ ownership interests in Dilonell v. Chandler, (2024) 2024 WL 2341744.

Frida Dilonell pursued a partition action begun in 2017 regarding a 50% interest she held in a 5-unit residential property against Suzanne Chandler who held the other 50% interest.

In June 2018, Dilonell got the property appraised for $960, 000 and sought to buy Chandler’s 50% interest at the appraised value. Chandler motioned to have a partition referee appointed to list and sell the property because she thought the appraisal did not reflect the true value of the property of $1.5 million.

The judge denied Chandler’s motion for a partition referee and issued an order directing sale of property on October 2, 2019. This order specified that if an offer was not received in first two weeks either party could purchase at listing. A party was a successful purchaser they only need to close the escrow with 50% of the agreed to sales price. The parties were to return to court if escrow was not closed in 90 days. The property was listed for $1.5 million.

On August 6, 2020, the trial court ordered the listing period extended again until January 1, 2021, at a lower price of $1.295 million. In January 2021 the trial court determined the highest valid offer was from a third party for $1.050 million. The court ordered parties to accept the offer to which Dilonell appealed. On this first appeal the trial court order was affirmed and the case was remanded.

When the case was returned to the trial court, it came in front of a new judge. The parties signed the purchase agreement and opened escrow with the third party, but the third party cancelled escrow. Dilonell said she would buy the property for the same amount as the third party, but Chandler rejected the offer.

On September 12 ,2022 at a hearing, parties were directed to follow the October order and the price was listed again at $1.125 million for 60 days. The highest offer received was refused by Chandler and withdrawn. Dilonell offered to buy Chandler’s interest in the property for a price of $1.005 million for the whole property. Dilonell also offered that escrow would close upon deposit of 50% of the purchase price plus additional costs due. At the end of the listing period there was only the third-party offer. The broker suggested the price be lowered to $1.1 million but Chandler did not want to.

At a status conference in February 2023, Chandler asked for the court to wait for Dilonell’s ongoing probate matter to conclude. At the conference Dilonell asked the court to deem her offer the highest and order Chandler to complete the sale. The court continued the same status conference until April 5, 2023, to allow the probate matter to conclude.

At the same time the court issued a tentative ruling granting Dilonell’s request made in February. Chandler filed a brief where she attached a new third party offer for $1.049 million. Chandler asked the court to reconsider its tentative ruling and either order Dilonell to pay $1.049 million or order the property to be sold to the third party.

The hearing for the partition matter took place on April 20, 2023, and the court adopted its tentative decision ordering Chandler to execute the purchase agreement and complete the sale. Chandler appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion and lacked authority in ordering her to sell, as Dilonell’s purchase offer was not compliant with the court order. Here, the Court of Appeal of the Second District affirms the trial court’s order to sell the property.

Chandler contends new judge could not change the first judge’s order because in absence of a full price offer a trial court judge may not reconsider and overrule a ruling of another judge. This is counter to the position Chandler took in the trial court where she argued the new judge had the authority to change the order. Here, this court held while the power of a judge to vacate another’s order is limited there was no abuse of discretion. Where the trial court issues an order there is a possibility of unforeseen change in circumstances, so the court retains the inherent authority to modify an order (Restat.2d Judgments, section 73, com.b.). Citing Chandler’s argument from the first remand, this court held this is an appropriate case for the trial court to modify its previous orders because of the third-party cancelling escrow and passage of time since the end of the first listing period along with changing market conditions. Even if the exception did not apply, the trial court’s decision did not amount to reconsidering, overruling, or vacating the October order.

This court held the October order expressly contemplated that more orders would be needed if escrow did not close within the first listing period and did not limit what additional orders would be needed. The second judge had authority to devise a new approach to the sale under the further orders provision of the October order. The fact that the second judge initially directed the parties to follow the October order did not negate the further orders provision, so the new order permitting the 50% escrow deposit was authorized by the October order.

There was no abuse of discretion when the trial court rejected Chandler’s late third party offer as it did not comply with the trial court orders. Additionally, if Dilonell’s offer is withdrawn there is no guarantee a third listing period will result in a higher final offer than, especially considering the previous listing periods. This court saw the repeated attempts to list and reject Dilonell’s offers as Chandler placing obstacles in the way of Dilonell. This goes against the purpose of a partition sale which is to sell the property for a fair price in a limited period of time.

How the Underwood Law Firm Can Help

A court’s determination of how a partition sale is to be conducted depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Factors such as motivation and willingness to sell 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.