California Partition Law Blog
A motion to determine title is a motion to the court requesting that the court establish title to a piece of real property. Typically, a motion to determine title shows up in the court as a quiet title action. A quiet title action is brought when a litigant seeks to establish that they have an ownership interest in the subject property and refute any adverse claims against the litigant. It follows that to prevail on a motion to determine title; one must show that they hold some ownership interest in the subject property.
The law surrounding a motion to determine title is codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 760.030. Under section 760.030, when establishing or quieting title is in issue in an action or proceeding, the court may, upon motion of any party, require that the issue be resolved pursuant to the provisions of the code of civil procedure relating to quiet title actions. (CCP § 760.030.) At Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are more than familiar with partition actions and the step-by-step process of pursuing a partition.
Yes, but only in specific circumstances. When thinking of lawsuits, most people associate them with individuals. John may sue Mary for battery, for example. But this isn’t always the case. A large part of the law is devoted to virtual representation because some people, like minors, simply cannot file suit. 
When there are two or more owners of a piece of real property who are unable to come to an agreement on how to divide the property, any co-owner of the subject property may petition the court to partition the property. This is known as a partition action. Generally, the decision of a court to partition the property is merely the first step in the partition process. Although a partition action may sound quite simple, it is a complex process that requires extensive accounting and patience. 
In California, property subject to a trust can be partitioned, though with some additional wrinkles to the regular partition process. Because trusts can often involve successive estates with future and present property interests, litigants should take care to understand the law regarding trusts before beginning such an action. 
Co-ownership of property brings with it many rights and duties under the law. These rights and duties can vary depending on whether co-owners hold property as tenants in common or joint tenants; these are the two most popular forms of joint ownership in the state. Regardless of the ownership scheme, however, both forms of cotenancy share the same indisputable right: the right of possession. (
Slander of title is quite the unique cause of action. As the name implies, it involves defamatory or slanderous activity but not against any person or personal interest. Instead, a slander of title involves activity that calls the state of your title into doubt (by, for example, filing an unwarranted lis pendens) that diminishes the value of your property. 
In most cases, no. Instead, the statute of limitations most frequently bars a partition action when a party’s rights to the property have lapsed due to an ouster. 
A partition by appraisal is an alternative method of partition that occurs when the parties to a partition action agree to have the subject property partitioned by appraisal. With the Partition of Real Property Act taking effect in 2023, almost every partition action moving forward will involve a Partition by Appraisal. As such, the rules for a partition by appraisal will be important to know for everyone involved in such an action.
“Joint tenancy” is a phrase that most people associate with the co-ownership of a property. And indeed, this is correct. Joint tenancy is a form of co-ownership in California, second only to tenancies-in-common in terms of popularity. But just because the words “joint tenancy” are used in a deed or other property-related document does not mean one actually exists. 
In California, in many partition actions, the court may enter an interlocutory judgment of partition, whereby there is an entry of judgment for partition. As opposed to a final judgment, an interlocutory judgment is a temporary judgment that is issued during the litigation of a case rather than after trial.