Camarillo Partition Lawyers

Camarillo is a city in Ventura County, founded by brothers Juan and Adolfo Camarillo. Old Town, the heart of the original Camarillo “town site” was first laid in 1910.

As of February 2025, the median sales price of homes in Camarillo stands at $825,000, with homes remaining on the market for 39 days, according to Redfin. Camarillo residents who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners.

There are at least four types of situations where a Camarillo Partition Attorney may be helpful:

• Investor-Developer co-ownership of property; 
• Ex Romantic Partner co-ownership of property; 
• Shared Family co-ownership of property; and
• Parent-Child co-ownership of property;

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

What Are the Steps in a Partition Action?

Generally, the first step in the partition lawsuit process is not a lawsuit, but an earnest attempt to resolve the matter informally, such as through a partition agreement. Only when it is clear that litigation is the only option, is it clear that a partition lawsuit is appropriate.

When it is clear that a partition lawsuit is necessary, then the process begins with the filing of a complaint in the county where the property is located. There are several technical requirements for the partition complaint, and many important steps that must be taken during the lawsuit to ensure that the process is managed effectively.

In a partition lawsuit, there are generally four different steps. First, the court determines each party’s ownership interests. Second, the court will decide on the manner of sale. Third, the court will order the property be sold. Fourth, the proceeds from the sale will be divided between the parties based on their relative contributions to the property.

While some may believe that inherited property cannot be partitioned, this is incorrect. Instead, when the property is owned as the result of an inheritance, there may be an additional step for an appraisal, and a right of first refusal, as provided by the Uniform Partition of Heirs Act. Under this act, where a co-tenant requests partition by sale, the law gives the non-partition owner the option to buy all of the interests of the co-tenants who requested the sale. A top Camarillo 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 Camarillo 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 Camarillo Partition Attorney will be intimately familiar with these matters.

A Partition Case Study: Maddox v. Maddox (2023)

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.) The following paragraphs discuss how a grant deed can prevail over a prior marital settlement agreement. (Maddox v. Maddox (2023) 2023 WL 4098941.)

Sherman and Tina Maddox were married in 1983 and separated in 2002. In 2003, they entered into a marital settlement agreement which was incorporated into a judgment for dissolution. The judgment awarded their home to Sherman and terminated the marriage. Prior to the judgment Tina had created a living trust and quitclaimed her record title in the property to that trust. In February 2004, Sherman and Tina agreed to place Tina back on the title through a deed granting title to the property as unmarried joint tenants. A few days before they signed the grant deed Tina quitclaimed her interest out of her trust and back to herself as an unmarried woman. In May 2005, Tina and Sherman signed another trust deed to take out a home equity line of credit to make improvements to the property. Until August 2009, they lived together like they were married, and shared expense and paid bills jointly. They also kept a joint bank account where Tina made deposits and Sherman had his paychecks deposited. In August 2009, Tina and her daughter left Sherman and moved out of the property following a domestic violence incident.

In 2015 and 2018 Sherman asked Tina to quitclaim her share of the property to him. She refused and wanted him to pay her rent from when she had moved out of the property. In 2018, Tina filed a complaint against Sherman for quiet title, partition, and unjust enrichment based on the 2004 deed. Sherman answered with various affirmative defenses and filed a cross complaint asserting various causes of action. There was a multi-day bench trial.

Tina presented an expert in real estate and title. The expert testified that as of the dissolution Sherman owned the whole property. The parties then reestablished joint ownership of the property in February 2004 with the grant deed. The expert testified that Tina executed the quitclaim deed in 2010 as an estate planning device to terminate the joint tenancy and that it did not change the 50/50 ownership. Tina testified they reconciled their relationship in 2003 and Sherman put her back on the property because they both agreed to it. She testified she created a living trust with her attorney’s guidance to sever the joint tenancy in 2003.

The trial court found Sherman lacked credibility in testifying that he and Tina did not reconcile or reside together. Sherman’s testimony was contradicted by evidence of the joint bank account, receipts, checks, concert tickets and other events. The court also found the evidence rebutted the Evidence Code section 662 presumption of ownership. It found the property was still owned 50/50. It also found Tina was entitled to partition and reimbursement for one half of the benefit Sherman received in reasonable rental value. It found Sherman’s causes of actions time barred.

Sherman appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court of appeal applied the substantial evidence standard of review where findings of fact are liberally construed to support the trial court’s judgment and to be most favorable to the prevailing party. Sherman failed to present a full and fair statement of the trial evidence, and just recited facts and positions in his favor. Due to the one-sided presentation, he forfeited any substantial evidence challenge.

Sherman attacked the trial court’s findings entitling Tina to quiet title and partition. He argued the court misinterpreted the plain meaning of the words used in the 2004 deed and Sherman did not transfer anything to Tina. He also argued Tina’s creation of the trust and transfer of property into it were wrongful acts making he and her trust involuntary trustee s of Sherman’s interest. He argued he met his burden pf proof establishing he was the true owner via the divorce judgment and was entitled to the statutory presumption that he owns the property.

The court of appeal rejected Sherman’s argument that the language and interpretation of the 2004 grant deed was improper. The primary object of interpretation is to determine intent of parties. While extrinsic evidence is admissible it is on the judicial function to determine the interpretation unless it turns on credibility of extrinsic evidence. Tina presented extrinsic evidence around the execution of the 2004 grant deed.

Sherman’s arguments failed to acknowledge the evidence surrounding the 2004 grant deed’s execution and the parties’ intent, which the court credited in Tina’s favor. That evidence showed Tina and Sherman intended to reestablish joint ownership of the property. This evidence included expert testimony concerning the effect of the deed and was substantial evidence supporting the finding of 50/50 ownership. Sherman ignored the designation of the parties as joint tenants in the deed’s granting clause. The 2004 deed identified Tina as a grantor in her capacity as trustee of her trust. The deed also contained handwritten words “out of trust” written by an unknown person. At most, this rendered the deed’s meaning ambiguous. However, the expert resolved the ambiguity, explaining that three days before the deed was executed, Tina conveyed the property back to herself which was not enough time for the title company to update their records. As such, the “out of trust” notation was intended to indicate there was no documentary transfer tax.

Sherman argued Tina and her trust were involuntary trustees of his interest in the property. The argument fails as the notion that Tina violated the terms of the divorce judgment is contradicted by trial evidence accepted by the court. They did reconcile. Separately, the expert testified the transfer to the trust was an estate planning mechanism.

The court of appeal also affirmed the trial court’s finding that the parties dissolution judgment was a contract neither party followed. Sherman argued a divorce judgment is not a contract and a contract cannot modify a divorce judgment. Yet, Tina was not seeking to modify the judgment. The civil action revolved around title and ownership of real property. The matter did not implicate personal property transfers or questions of fiduciary obligation and the transfer occurred after the parties took title as unmarried persons.

Sherman contends the court erred because he met his burden of clear and convincing proof to rebut the Evidence Code section 662 presumption of ownership. Thus, according to Sherman, the divorce judgment rebutted the presumption as a matter of law. These arguments disregarded Tina’s evidence as to the timing of events, as well as her expert’s testimony about the effect of the 2004 deed executed after the divorce judgment awarded Sherman the property, giving him equitable title. Tina established the parties mutually agreed to change legal title via a grant deed. the parties’ dissolution judgment does not rebut the Evidence Code section 662 title presumption arising from the later execution of the 2004 grant deed.

The court of appeal upheld the trial courts holding on the other arguments Sherman raised.

How the Underwood Law Firm Can Help

A court’s determination of how property interests are divided is to be conducted depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Factors such as prevailing deeds and evidence can ultimately affect the outcome of a partition case determining property interests. 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.