Union City Partition Lawyers

Union City was incorporated in 1959, combining the communities of Alarado and Decoto. Union City is home to the first sugar beet factory in the United States, called the California Beet Sugar Company.

As of February 2025, the median sales price of homes in Union City stands at $1,540,000, with homes remaining on the market for 10 days, according to Redfin. Union City residents who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners.

Generally, the best Union City Partition Lawyers usually find partition action to be the best remedy for disputing co-owners in four broad categories:

• Family owned real estate where only one party wants to sell;
• Former romantic partners who jointly own real estate where only one party wants to sell;
• Jointly owned real estate where only one party wants to sell;
• Partnership real estate where only one party wants to sell;

What Is a Partition Action

A partition action is a lawsuit brought by a property owner seeking the court to force the sale of a jointly owned piece of real property. Typically, partition actions occur when co-owners of real estate have disputes about its ownership and use, and one of them seeks to end their ownership interest. That is, a partition action has no other purpose than to sever the unity of possession between cotenants in a piece of real property. (Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail (1938) 11 Cal.2d 501, 539.) Currently, partition actions are governed by the provisions set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure section 872.010. These statutes set out a general process by which a property may be partitioned. 

Historically, the term “partition” comes from the basic word to break into “parts” as in physically dividing real estate in half. For example, if two siblings inherited ten acres of farmland, the property could historically be divided into five acres a piece for each of them. As most people now live in single-family homes, which cannot simply be “split in half,” courts will instead order that the property be sold and the proceeds, or equity, be “split in half.” The best Union City Partition Lawyer will be able to share information on this process with you.

What Are the Steps in a Partition Action?

Generally, a partition action has four stages, which include (1) the filing of the lawsuit (2) an appraisal of the Property under the Partition of Real Property Act, (3) the determination of the parties’ interests, and appointment of a referee to sell the property, and (4) the division of the proceeds from the sale.

In California partition actions, the court must enter an interlocutory judgment where the court finds that the Plaintiff in a partition action is entitled to a partition. (CCP § 872.720.) The interlocutory judgment “determines the interests of the parties in the property and, unless it is to be later determined, the manner of partition.” (CCP § 872.720.) A top Union City Partition lawyer will be familiar with the process.

Mediation or Negotiation

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 Union City 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 Union City Partition Attorney will be intimately familiar with these matters.

A Case Study in Arguing Partition in Kind is Equitable: VIA Appia, LLC v. OP Development, INC. (2024)

A partition is a legal procedure in which the court shall segregate and terminate the common interests in a piece of real property. When the court finds the plaintiff is entitled to a partition by sale, the court will 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 party can establish partition by sale is more equitable than a partition in kind. (Via Appia, LLC v. OP Development, Inc., 2024 WL 1666694.)

Via Appia owned a one third interest in parcel of grazing land and filed for partition requesting the parcel be physically divided between Via Appia and another owner, OP Development (OPD). As co-owners of the Property, Via Appia is entitled to partition. Via Appia first filed a complaint for partition by sale in August 2015, alleging that partition by sale was more equitable than partition in kind. Via Appia filed an amended complaint 40 days later changing the relief requested to partition in kind. A third amended complaint was filed in March 2019.

The property at issue was designated by the county to be for residential land use and natural resources land use. A county planning director testified at trial that the property is suitable for development of high-density housing but significant entitlements and permitting would need to occur.

At trial, the parties agreed on the appraised value of the property. However, they disagreed on the approaches to potential future development of the property in deciding if it was possible to equitably divide the property into subparcels. On May 9, 2022, the trial court filed an interlocutory judgment. The trial court did not announce a tentative decision or issue a proposed statement of decision. In holding partition by sale was property the trial court put forth a hypothetical where partition in kind would be easy. Via Appia appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Fifth District of California, asking the court to find partition in kind was more equitable than partition by sale.

Here, the court of appeal considered the partition statute presumption that it is more equitable to divide the property physically. (CCP § 872.810 and 872.820.) This court reviewed Via Appia’s appeal under abuse of discretion in determining whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in rendering an interlocutory judgment for partition. Via Appia argued on appeal that the trial court denied division in kind after acknowledging division in kind could be done easily and amplified its abuse of discretion by using uncertainty about future development as the basis for rejecting in kind division.

Neither parties’ brief addressed an applicable standard of proof, so this court held the applicable standard was a preponderance of the evidence. OPD needed to present sufficient evidence to develop the record allowing a reasonable fact finder to make a finding according to Via Appia’s argument.

The court of appeal agreed with Via Appia that the trial court did have a mandatory obligation to announce a tentative decision. This precluded Via Appia from requesting a statement of decision. However, Via Appia did not request the matter be remanded for completion of that process or a new trial as would be expected. Via Appia sought reversal of the judgment and a remand. Because the trial court prematurely filed the interlocutory judgment the doctrine of implied findings does not apply. Via Appia was unable to object to any omissions or ambiguities in the record. The record was also clear about the trial court’s rationale for ordering partition by sale.

Via Appia argued the trial court’s hypothetical was a finding of fact. The court of appeal rejected that argument as the hypo was used to describe a situation distinct from circumstances existing at the time of trial. A trial court should consider all the evidence relevant to the property’s value and use to determine what method of partition is most equitable. Property’s development potential is relevant to its value. Contrary to what Via Appia argued, the property’s current use or status should not be the only basis in determining value. This court applied tests from Butte Creek to determine the value of the property and equitability of partition. Via Appia argued the trial court erred in applying the test. Two tests were applied in the Butte Creek case: (1) a party may carry the burden of proving a sale is more equitable by presenting evidence sufficient to show the property cannot be divided into equal subparcels or (2) the party seeking partition may carry the burden of proving due to the particulars of the land its division would substantially diminish the value of each party’s interest.

This court held current usage alone is not the correct legal basis in determining equitability similar to current market value because it is unduly restricted to future development based on current land sue regulations. Value under the partition statues and the Butte Creek tests should include the possibility that the land use restrictions may be modified to allow more intensive development. Neither party cited, nor did the court of appeal locate, any authority to the contrary.

A reasonable trier of fact could find OPD carried its burden of proving a partition by sale was more equitable. Even if Via Appia did adopt the correct view of current market value taking into account the possibility regulations would be revised and increase the property’s potential for development, their argument fails. There is evidence in the record it would be difficult to create subparcels that proportionately allocate the property’s value from potential future development.

Separately, OPD argued the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s decision. The record contains substantial evidence to support finding a physical division of the property would be inequitable due to the uncertainty about how the property’s aggregate value would be determined. It would be too difficult to ensure the property was divided in a manner to protect the interest of each owner proportionally due to if and when the development process occurs on the property. This court did not address the second Butte Creek test as the judgment can be upheld under the first test.

There were two issues the court of appeal did not address in depth. OPD argued Via Appia’s first complaint for partition by sale was judicial admission. This court did not address the issue because the judgment was affirmed on an alternate ground. Via Appia also filed a petition for rehearing based on the argument that the trial court’s opinion contains two material omissions and four misstatements or mistakes of law. Via Appia did not provide any authority to show its claims of trial court error warranted the entry of a judgment for partition in kind so a rehearing with supplemental briefing is not required. However, Via Appia did not elaborate on these theories so they are not considered.

Ultimately, the court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s interlocutory judgment of partition by sale.

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 the property’s value and future development 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.