San Ramon Partition Lawyers

The city of San Ramon was formerly a village which developed once the Southern Pacific Railroad came into town in 1864. Today, the town has an estimated population of 76,000 and is known as Tree City USA. Housing units in San Ramon are over 70% owner-occupied, which suggests that many homes are jointly owned. As such, residents of San Ramon who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners. Generally, the best San Ramon Partition Lawyers usually find partition action to be the best remedy for disputing co-owners in four broad categories:

• Split real estate dispute;
• Brother-Sister real estate dispute;
• Investor-Investor real estate dispute; and
• Significant other real estate dispute

In a partition action, there is specific information required to be set forth in a complaint in order to permit the lawsuit to proceed. The plaintiff must set forth a property description of the disputed property. (CCP § 872.230(a).) If the property in dispute is tangible and personal in nature, the plaintiff must set forth its usual location. (CCP § 872.230(a).) If the property is real property, the plaintiff must set forth both the legal description and the street address or common designation, if any. (CCP § 872.230(a).)

The description of the property will suffice as long as it allows for the identification of the property in dispute in the partition action. The objective of such description is to prove that the property is in the court’s jurisdiction, to allow the defendant to deny the plaintiff’s title, to allow the court to make a determination relating to the mode and extent of partition, and to help ascertain the interest to be distributed. (see Broome v. Broome (1919) 179 Cal. 638.)

In Broome, the court entered a partition decree, which fixed and determined the rights of the parties. One of the parties claimed that the decree was premature, however, based on the allegation that the partial distribution of an estate was incomplete. The Court held that the decree was final and valid, because everyone with a valid interest had received notice and there was no evidence of fraud. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment. (Broome, 179 Cal. at 640-641.)

As such, if the plaintiff describes the property as located in a certain township and county and as a specific numbered lot in a specific bloc as it is assigned on specific plat filed on a specific date in the county recorder’s office, the description shall be sufficient. (see Home Security Building & Loan Ass’n v. Western Land & Title Co. (1904) 145 Cal. 217.) The plaintiff is not required to set forth the riparian right of the parcel in the complaint since the riparian right is part and parcel of the property, incorporated in the property’s description. (see Rose v. Mesmer (1904) 142 Cal. 322.) Where the interlocutory decree has already been affirmed on appeal, an obvious mistake as to the street name, which is blatantly a mere clerical error, does not go to the merits, and where the street is adequately described otherwise to establish its identify, may be corrected at any time. (see Fallon v. Brittan (1890) 84 Cal. 511.)

At Underwood Law Firm, our San Ramon Partition Attorneys are well-versed in the legal remedy of partition, and are ready to discuss your legal issues.