Los Angeles partition lawyers help co-owners resolve real estate disputes when one owner wants to sell, and the others won't agree, usually through a partition action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The city of Los Angeles was founded on September 4, 1781, under Felipe de Neve, the Governor of Spanish California. Today it's the second largest city in the United States, and with that much real estate comes plenty of co-ownership. When co-owners can't agree on what to do with a property, a [real estate law] dispute often follows, and a partition action is usually the remedy that resolves it.
A [partition action] is a lawsuit that forces the sale or division of jointly owned real estate, regardless of whether every owner agrees to it.
The purpose of a partition action is to permanently end all disputes and remove all obstacles to the free enjoyment of land by one person. (McGillivray v. Evans (1864) 27 Cal. 92.) These actions can be brought for all types of real estate, from houses to farms to office buildings to apartment buildings. Partition actions are also available for all types of ownership situations, from joint tenants to tenants-in-common to partnership property to property jointly owned by former spouses.
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 apiece. As most people now live in single-family homes, which can't simply be split in half, courts will instead order that the property be sold and the proceeds, or equity, split between the owners.
Any co-owner of real property in Los Angeles generally has the right to file a partition action, regardless of how small their ownership share is.
That right extends to:
A co-owner doesn't need the consent of the other owners to file, and doesn't need to show any wrongdoing by them. The right to partition is close to absolute, though the court retains discretion over how the division actually happens.
Most Los Angeles partition cases fall into a handful of recurring patterns:
The details differ, but the underlying problem is usually the same: one owner wants out, and the others won't agree on terms.
California recognizes two basic forms of partition, and the choice between them can significantly affect the outcome.
Partition by sale results in the property being sold, typically at a court-supervised sale or through a private listing approved by the court, with the proceeds divided among the owners according to their interests. This is by far the most common outcome for residential property, since most homes can't be physically divided without destroying their value.
Partition in kind physically divides the property itself, giving each owner a distinct portion of the land. Courts generally favor partition in kind when it's practical and won't unfairly reduce the property's overall value, but this outcome is rare for single-family homes and far more common for large parcels of undeveloped land that can be subdivided.
Under California's partition statutes, courts consider factors including the practicality of a physical division, the impact on the property's value, and whether the owners have expressed a preference before deciding which approach applies.
Under the Partition of Real Property Act, the court appoints an appraiser to do the heavy lifting. The statute states that the court "shall determine the fair market value of the property by ordering an appraisal." (CCP § 874.316.) The court doesn't have to be the one to order the appraisal, but only if all the co-owners agree to a different method of valuation.
If an appraisal does occur, it must be conducted by a disinterested third-party real estate appraiser licensed to determine the fair market value of properties. After the appraisal, parties may file objections to the value and can offer additional evidence of value to the court.
After the valuation is complete, parties reach the key feature of the statute: the buy-out option. If a co-owner requests a partition by sale, the court will notify the other co-owners that they may buy all the interests of the co-tenant who requested the partition. (CCP § 874.317.)
This is, essentially, a right of first refusal. The co-owners who don't want the property sold now have the option to buy out the requesting party. The buy-out price is based on the property's valuation, determined earlier in the litigation. If one or more parties exercise the buy-out, the court will reapportion ownership percentages based on the price paid.
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 held that 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.
The court in Milian v. De Leon (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1185 further held that a co-tenant who expends money for the preservation of the property, or with the acceptance of their co-tenants, is entitled to reimbursement for those expenditures before the division of proceeds among the owners.
The general rule is that compensatory adjustments are appropriate for improvements that enhance the property's value for all owners' benefit. (See Wallace v. Daley (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1035 to 1036.) A knowledgeable Los Angeles partition lawyer will be familiar with this process.
Partition action costs vary widely depending on how contested the case becomes, but owners should expect to budget for a few recurring categories.
Because most partition costs are ultimately paid from the sale proceeds or divided among the owners, a co-owner rarely needs to pay everything out of pocket up front. [Schedule a consultation] with our office to get a realistic estimate based on your specific property and dispute.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 874.040, the court generally apportions the costs of partition, including reasonable attorney's fees, among the parties in proportion to their ownership interests. In many cases, the attorney who brought the action on behalf of all co-owners can have their fees paid from the common fund created by the sale, since the litigation benefits everyone with an interest in the property.
That said, the court has discretion to depart from an even split if one party's conduct unnecessarily increased the litigation costs, so cost allocation isn't always automatic or equal.
Timelines vary, but a partition action typically takes anywhere from a few months to over a year, depending on how much the co-owners disagree.
An uncontested case, where the parties are willing to cooperate on valuation and sale terms, can sometimes resolve in as little as six months. A contested case involving disputed ownership shares, contribution claims, or a fight over partition in kind versus partition by sale can take a year or more, particularly if it proceeds through a full appraisal, objection period, and potential trial.
Settling early through mediation or negotiation is usually the fastest path to resolution, though the case still needs to be filed to create the leverage that often drives that settlement.
A partition action can always be resolved informally at any time prior to the first day of trial. In numerous instances, simply filing the partition itself leads the other party to seek a resolution. We always encourage the parties to talk throughout every phase of the process, since that tends to 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 with the best leverage usually achieves a more favorable outcome. The lawsuit gives the client more leverage because it opens up more options than they'd have without the prospect of a judge's resolution. The best way to informally resolve a dispute is to combine discussions with active litigation, so the matter can be resolved quickly without unnecessary expense.
Throughout the process, our attorneys stay in touch with our clients about their options and the prospects for informal resolution through mediation or negotiation. An experienced Los Angeles partition lawyer will be familiar with this process.
Interpreting a decedent's will can be tricky business. Oftentimes, there are familial conflicts that can cause bias in one's interpretation of the will. People may also argue for an interpretation that advances their own self-interests. Sometimes, personal feelings can get in the way of logical thinking.
Familial squabbling over property left by wills can get ugly and can often cause people to make arguments with little regard towards evidence. Emotional ties to property can also cause parties to question the estate when property is being distributed. There are many complex relationships to deal with in probate cases, and courts generally will not be amenable to arguments based more on emotion than legal standing.
Estate of Sanchez, Cal.App.Unpub WL 16548875 (2022), is an example of a party making arguments due to personal feelings and not based on proper legal authority or other evidence. Estate of Sanchez is an important reminder that though lawsuits involving family members can become contentious, ultimately a court is only concerned with logical arguments that have at least some legal backing.
Decedent Frank Sanchez passed away in April 2016. (Id., at 1.) Frank's daughter, Leslie, became the executor and personal representative of his estate. (Id.) Frank's surviving wife, Caroline, had an interest in their community and quasi-community property, which was confirmed in Frank's will. (Id.) However, Frank also gave his own one-half interest in the community and quasi-community property, as well as all of his separate property, to his children, including Leslie. (Id.) Caroline was explicitly disinherited. (Id.)
In January 2017, Leslie sued Caroline and other defendants for partition by sale of a property in San Jose that was owned partly by Frank's estate. (Id.) Leslie alleged that Caroline, who also owned an interest in the property, owed money to Frank's estate, and the sale proceeds would help satisfy that debt. (Id.)
Later, Caroline petitioned for a probate homestead. (Id., at 2.) Leslie opposed this petition, alleging that Caroline committed theft and fraud against Frank and that Caroline had no equity in the property she wanted as a homestead, allegations Leslie claimed that she could prove. (Id.) Caroline then amended her petition and asked to be given Frank's one-half interest in the community property as a probate homestead for the rest of her life. (Id.)
Caroline was retired and would not be able to afford a replacement home. (Id.) She was also 87 years old and in poor health. (Id.) That is why Caroline asked the court for the probate homestead, and the probate court had previously confirmed Caroline's community interest in the residence. (Id.)
Leslie opposed Caroline's amended petition, arguing that if the residence stayed with Caroline, it would violate the children's constitutional rights since Frank disinherited Caroline, so the property should be passed to Frank's children. (Id.) The trial court granted Caroline's lifetime probate homestead. (Id.) Leslie appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment. (Id.)
The main point of contention in Estate of Sanchez was Caroline's lifetime probate homestead. Leslie and Caroline did not seem to have the best relationship, as Leslie made several accusations against Caroline and opposed Caroline's requested probate homestead. Unfortunately, it seems that Leslie's personal feelings got in the way of her legal arguments, since Leslie often failed to cite to the record for evidence or cite proper legal precedents that would support her claims.
Leslie first argued that the trial court violated statute by giving Caroline the probate homestead without considering her and her siblings' interests. (Id., at 6.) Section 6523 of the Probate Code requires the probate court to consider not just the needs of the surviving spouse, but also the needs of the heirs of the decedent when selecting a probate homestead. (Id.)
Even though Leslie argued that the trial court violated section 6523 by not considering her and her siblings' interests, she provided no evidence to support her claim. (Id., at 7.) Leslie did not cite any records of what happened at the trial court, so the Court of Appeal had no way of knowing what the trial court considered at the hearing. (Id.) Leslie also did not cite any evidence that either she or her siblings had other needs that the trial court did not consider. (Id.) Since the burden was on Leslie to prove that the trial court erred, a burden that she failed, the Court of Appeal presumed the trial court's order did not violate section 6523. (Id.)
Leslie also argued that, according to section 21611 of the Probate Code, the probate homestead should not go to Caroline since it goes against the decedent's expressed intent of disinheriting Caroline. (Id.) Frank had disinherited Caroline by giving his half of the community property to his children, leaving Caroline only with her half. (Id., at 1.)
However, Leslie's argument once again lacked a legal backbone. (Id., at 7.) The trial court granted a probate homestead for Caroline; it did not give Caroline an ownership interest in Frank's half of the community property. (Id.) Section 21611 only affects spouses that receive a share of the decedent's estate, which is not what Caroline was receiving. (Id.) The Court of Appeal held that the probate homestead did not go against the decedent's intent or violate section 21611, writing:
The probate homestead does not conflict with the provisions of the Probate Code Leslie relies on, nor does it undermine Frank's expressed testamentary intent. Caroline is not receiving a share of Frank's estate in violation of section 21611, which precludes a spouse from receiving a share of the estate when the decedent intentionally failed to provide for the spouse. (§ 21611, subd. (a).) Leslie does not cite any legal authority indicating that a property can be set aside as a probate homestead for a spouse only if the decedent did not intentionally disinherit that spouse. (Id.)
Additionally, Leslie argued that the trial court violated several other provisions of the Probate Code and Civil Code when it ordered the probate homestead. (Id.) Leslie's arguments were again not supported by any legal authorities or citations to the record. (Id.)
Leslie also argued that the probate homestead order cannot bar co-owners from a partition action. (Id., at 8.) In a rare instance, Leslie used a case called Squibb v. Squibb to support her argument. (Id.) Unfortunately for Leslie, Squibb was not analogous to her case at all. (Id.)
In Squibb, a wife declared a homestead on a property where she was a co-tenant with her husband, but the husband sued for partition by sale. (Id.) The court in Squibb affirmed the partition by sale order, holding that the wife's homestead interest does not prevent a partition by sale. (Id.)
However, the homestead in Squibb was a declared homestead under the Code of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Those statutes were designed to prevent forced property sales by a party seeking a money judgment. (Id.) Caroline's homestead was a probate homestead under the Probate Code. (Id.) Leslie did not provide any legal authorities that Squibb applied also to probate homesteads. (Id.) The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's probate homestead order. (Id.)
Estate of Sanchez teaches that a party needs legal authority and sufficient evidence for their arguments in court. Though such proceedings can get emotional, one must always remember that courts need to see arguments backed by properly chosen legal authorities and evidence from the record, which provides a foundation for parties to build their arguments.
It can be difficult to present arguments in court, and Estate of Sanchez illustrates what insufficient legal arguments look like. Leslie may have stood a chance at the appellate court if she had picked better case law or provided any evidence to support her claims. Unfortunately for Leslie, none of her claims had any substance because she failed to provide a proper foundation for her arguments.
Partition cases combine real estate valuation, civil procedure, and often probate or family law issues in a single lawsuit, which is why choosing the right attorney matters.
[Underwood Law] focuses specifically on partition actions across California, including Los Angeles County. That focus means our attorneys track developments under the Partition of Real Property Act closely, from appraisal procedures to the buy-out process, and apply that knowledge to get co-owners to a resolution as efficiently as possible.
We also treat every case as a negotiation as much as a lawsuit. Rather than running up costs through unnecessary litigation, our attorneys stay in close contact with clients about settlement opportunities throughout the case, so the matter can resolve as soon as a fair outcome is on the table.
As seen in Estate of Sanchez, real estate law is full of statutes and legal authorities that may be confusing for parties trying to choose the right one. What's important is organizing your arguments and ensuring that each one has the proper legal backing, whether that's a statute or case law.
Here at Underwood Law, our knowledgeable attorneys help navigate the complex web of case law and statutes surrounding real estate. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to our office.
Generally, no. A co-owner has a nearly absolute right to partition, so you typically can't block the action outright, though you may be able to buy out the requesting party's interest instead.
Either party can file an objection to the court-ordered appraisal and offer additional evidence of value, and the court will resolve the disputed valuation before the case moves forward.
A partition action itself doesn't report to credit bureaus, but the resulting sale or transfer will appear in the property's title history once it's recorded.
You generally file in the county where the property is located, so a property outside Los Angeles County would typically require filing in that county's superior court instead.
If a co-owner is properly served and doesn't respond, the requesting party can generally seek a default judgment, allowing the case to move forward without that co-owner's participation.
Attorney Advertising - Results May Vary
The information on this site is intended for general information purposes only. By using this site, you agree that any information contained here does not constitute legal, financial, or any other form of professional advice. If you are facing a legal issue of any kind, get competent legal advice immediately so you can determine your best options. The information on this site may be changed without notice, and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, correct, or up-to-date.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Copyright © 2025, Underwood Law Firm, P.C.
