Dublin Partition Lawyers

Dublin was named for its rolling hills, similar to that of Dublin, Ireland. According to the 2020 census, Dublin had a population of 72,589, a rapid growth from 46,063 in 2010. Over 50 episodes of the television show “Mythbusters” were filmed at the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office bomb disposal range in Dublin.

As of February 2025, the median sales price of homes in Dublin stands at $1,340,000, with homes remaining on the market for 9 days, according to Redfin. Dublin residents who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners.

Often, Partition Lawyers find that joint ownership problems fall into four broad categories:

• Father/Mother-Son/Daughter tenants in common in real estate;
• Brother-Sister shared tenants in common in real estate;
• Investor-Investor shared tenants in common in real estate; and
• Non-Married Partners shared tenants in common in real estate;

What Is a Partition Action

Generally, partition is any division of real property between co-owners, where each co-owner obtains an ownership interest. A partition action is the forced sale of real property by a co-owner under the court’s supervision. Partition merely determines and allocates to the parties their respective interests in the property. (Cunha v. Hughes (1898) 122 Cal. 111.)

In the partitioning of property, the common interests in the property are segregated or terminated. (Summers v. Superior Court (Wan Fen Tan) 24 Cal.App.5th 138.) Partitions are generally favored by the and may occur by an agreement between the co-owners or by a judgment in an action. Typically, a partition may be made by either a physical division or sale of the property. in many modern transactions, a partition of the property by sale is preferable since often times, a division of the property will result in parcels that are not equal to the value of the whole property before the division. (Cummings v. Dessel (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 589, 597.) Also, a “physical division may be impossible due to zoning regulations or may be highly impractical.” (Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 360, 365.) The best Dublin Partition Lawyer will be able to share information on this process with you.

What Are the Steps in a Partition Action?

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 Dublin Partition lawyer will be familiar with the process.

Mediation or Negotiation

Generally, anyone considering filing a lawsuit should consider all of their alternatives, including an informal resolution of the problem. This can take the form of a discussion with the other owner or owners about agreeing to sell the property, negotiating with the co-owner to create a formula to divide the proceeds from the sale, or retaining a lawyer to engage in a mediation with the other owners.

Throughout the partition process, and even on the day of trial, any of the owners can make an agreement about the sale of the property. This can happen through a phone call, through negotiations between the parties’ lawyers, or through a mediation session with a retired judge or trained mediator. There are many benefits from a mediation session, including confidentiality provisions contained in the law in Evidence Code sections 1115 through 1129.

Specifically, Evidence Code section 1119, subdivision (a), provides “no evidence of anything said or any admission made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation consultation is admissible or subject to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled in any arbitration, administrative adjudication, civil action, or other noncriminal proceeding in which, pursuant to law, testimony can be compelled to be given.” A knowledgeable Dublin Partition Attorney will be able to give you good advice on these issues.

What Are Claims for Contribution?

A partition action frequently involves disputes related to the allowance for improvements by one joint owner or the other. The court may, in all partition cases, make an order for an allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory judgment among the parties in accordance with the principles of equity. (CCP § 872.140.) For instance, the court may make an equitable adjustment in order to offset the use value of the property against the improvement expenses. (see Hunter v. Schultz (1966) 240 Cal.App. 2d 24, 31.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 872.140 allows the court to make such orders for compensatory adjustments for items such as common improvements, unaccounted rents and profits, and other matters where contribution may be required. (Cal. L. Rev. Comm. Comment to CCP § 872.140.) An example of these types of improvements could be for remodeling a bathroom, rebuilding a deck, or painting the outside of the house. The property must be divided in a manner that allocates an individual any part that he or she has improved or that individual’s predecessor in interest, to the extent that it is practical and can be done without materially injuring the rights of the other co-owners. The determination of a division of allocation does not include the value of the improvements. (CCP § 873.220.) An experienced Dublin Partition Attorney will be intimately familiar with these matters.

A Joint Tenant Ouster Case Study: In Re Marriage of Ross (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 a marriage dissolution and ouster can lead to a partition action. (In re Marriage of Ross (2024) 2024 WL 2281840.)

William Ross and Stephen Crow purchased a home in San Francisco as joint tenants. They registered as domestic partners afterward and then married. Ross petitioned to dissolve the marriage in November 2020, but continued to live together in the shared home. In June 2021, Crow moved out leaving Ross as the sole occupant.

Ross and Crow went to family court for a marital dissolution. Three months before trial to divide marital assets the court granted a motion by Ross’s counsel to be relieved. The court later granted Ross’s ex parte application to continue trial to allow the new attorney more time to prepare. A new trial date was set for March 21, 2023.

Ross filed a second ex parte application detailing numerous health issues partially caused by the stress of the divorce on March 10, 2023. In this application Ross explained he would be perilous to his health for the trail to occur as scheduled. Ross attached doctors notes, one from a psychologist not saying anything about the trial date and the other from a doctor with just a sentence saying he should undergo trial at a staggered date. The family court denied the request without a hearing.

On the first day of trial stated there was no trial brief, witness, or exhibit list as Ross’s counsel said Ross was slow in interacting and too ill to be personally present. Trial proceeded without Ross present. Crow began testifying and Ross later appeared remotely missing about an hour of Crow’s testimony. The family court held Ross and Crow owned the property as joint tenants because they bought it before registering as domestic partners. The court granted Crow’s request for partition by sale and reimbursement for rent value because Ross ousted him from the house. Crow had testified he felt unsafe in the house due to the deterioration of the relationship, strangers in the house, and Ross’s activities in the house which the court found credible. Ross also changed the locks and refused to give Crow access to the property.

Ross appealed the family court’s denial of his motion to continue trial and finding that Ross ousted Crow from their home. Ross’s appeal came before the First District Court of Appeal. Ross argued the family court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. This court held trial dates are firm and continuances are disfavored, requiring a timely motion and good cause. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a), (c).) This court held that while illness and unavailability may provide good cause, they need support of an explanation of the illness and expected period of unavailability from a medical doctor.

This court held there was no abuse of discretion as the doctors notes could have been reasonably found insufficient in supporting an ex parte application. Because of video conference tech, Ross actually appearing, and how close the application was submitted in relation to the trial date, it was reasonable for the family court to deny it. The court had discretion to allow Crow to proceed with the case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 594.)

The issue of ouster is a legal question for the court of appeal to decide de novo, but this court also noted it would defer to the family court’s factual findings. Ouster is wrongfully dispossessing or excluding a tenant done by a cotenant from the common property which they are entitled to by possession. Ouster must be done with the intent to exclude the cotenant from gaining or sharing possession. An ousted tenant is entitled to damages which are usually the share of the value of the use and occupation of the land.

Because Ross changed the locks and refused to allow the other cotenant Crow to access the property it was ouster. Ross conceded that changing the locks was ouster and that by disputing rental value also conceded that an ousted tenant is entitled to damages. Ross also failed to cite any law requiring more detailed findings about when the locks were changed or specifically how Ross refused Crow access. He also forfeited those arguments by not objecting to the statement of decision. He provided no transcript or settled statement, so this court assumed the evidence supports the judgment.

This court upheld the family court’s determination of ouster and held the family court properly awarded the rental value damages. Ross did not provide a record to challenge the courts finding of ouster and rental damages so the amount determined by the family court is upheld.

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 like ouster and prior marriage disputes 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.