California Code of Civil Procedure section 872.020 is under Title 10.5 Partition of Real and Personal Property. This statute details the scope, or in other words, the actions of partition that the title controls. The statute aims to clarify the property to which Partition Law actions may apply.
Code of Civil Procedure section 872.020 states
This title governs actions for partition of real property and, except to the extent not applicable, actions for partition of personal property.
Partitions sales and trustee sales are two different ways that a property can be sold. A main difference between the two is that a partition sale is ordered and overseen by the court, while a trustee sale is overseen by a third party in relation to foreclosure proceedings. While the third party is not beholden to a court ruling in a trustee sale, they must still follow the procedures outlined in California law.
Usually, partition sales are ordered by a court. This is because partition lawsuits are often brought before courts by a property owner who wants to force a sale if the parties cannot come to an agreement. Read more about partition actions generally here.
The California Partition Law begins in Code of Civil Procedure section 872.010 with definitions. These definitions apply throughout the entirety of the Partition Law, which ends only in Code of Civil Procedure section 874.323. The point of this statute is to provide uniformity throughout the Partition Law and reduce any uncertainty about the meaning of any terms so that the law may be applied without any debt.
Code of Civil Procedure section 872.010 states
As used in this title:
Lawsuits that affect interests in real property, such as partition actions, often require courts to adjudicate competing claims regarding who should have title to or possession of real property. In general, courts adjudicating such disputes follow the principle of “first in time, first in right.” Under this principle, “a conveyance recorded first generally has priority over any later-recorded conveyance.” (First Bank v. East West Bank (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1309, 1313.)
An important factor that courts consider when adjudicating cases affecting interests in property is whether each party affected by the court’s judgment had notice of the litigation or judgment. A judgment affecting title to or possession of real property that is recorded imparts “constructive” notice to a subsequent transferee or encumbrancer. When recorded, such judgment is effective against any subsequent conveyance or encumbrance, regardless of whether the parties to that judgment receive notice about the subsequent conveyance or encumbrance. (Civ. Code, § 1214.)
In contrast, a judgment that is not recorded with the recorder’s office of the county in which a property is located does not impart constructive notice to subsequent transferees or encumbrancers of the property. Any such judgment generally is not binding on a subsequent transferee or encumbrancer who acquires and records an interest in the property without notice of the prior litigation or judgment. (Civ. Code, § 1214.)
Generally, a co-owner of real property may commence an action in a partition. Owners of an estate of inheritance, a life estate, or an estate for years who hold such interest concurrently or in successive estates may seek to partition the property. (CCP § 872.201(a)(2).) Those with concurrent interest in the property may partition the property as of right unless barred by a valid waiver. (CCP § 872.710(b).) As such, a co-owner of the property has an absolute right to partition, absent a valid waiver. (Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 957.)
Partition actions most often result from joint ownership problems falling into four broad categories: (1) Father/Mother-Son/Daughter tenants in common in real estate; (2) Brother-Sister shared tenants in common in real estate; (3) Investor-Investor shared tenants in common in real estate, and (4) Non-Married Partners shared tenants in common in real estate.
Partitions are lawsuits that split up the property between multiple co-owners so that each can take their equity out of the home. The prototypical partition is that between unmarried partners or business partners. Both own equal shares, but only one wants to end the relationship and take their money out. Partitions enable this to happen, usually ending with a court-ordered sale of the subject property.
The presence of a trust changes this calculus. This is because a trustee typically holds the property for the benefit of another. (Estate of Yool (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 867, 874.) As such, pursuing a partition becomes much more difficult to do, especially because partitions cannot be used to disrupt the purpose and provisions of an express irrevocable trust.
At the Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are well-versed in these matters and familiar with the intricacies of the interactions between property law and probate procedures. The following are steps that every litigant should keep in mind before pursuing the partition of a property subject to a trust.
A deed is a legal instrument, evidenced in writing, to confirm the ownership interest or legal rights of an owner of real property. Essentially, a deed is necessary to determine the titleholder of a piece of real estate. Moreover, a deed grants an owner of real property legal rights to convey, sell, or transfer the property. Therefore, when purchasing a piece of real property, it is extremely important for a person to obtain a deed in order to evidence their ownership in writing and protect their legal rights in the property.
However, a deed is not just a simple piece of paper establishing a person’s ownership interest in the property. There are several elements that are required in order for a deed to be valid. At the Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are more than familiar with the elements of a deed and its effect on real property.
Following the explosive split between the two stars in the hit reality show, “Vanderpump Rules,” many are left wondering what will become of the couple’s $2.2 million dollar home. Prior to their split, Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval bought a farmhouse-style home in 2019 and took their time to renovate the Property into their dream home.
Unfortunately, due to Sandoval’s alleged affair in March 2023, the couple split but are still living under the same roof, with Sandoval apparently refusing to leave and stating that Madix was free to leave if she had a problem with him staying.
What happens when one party wants to leave, and the other party wants to stay on their shared property? In these situations, an owner of commonly owned property like Madix may feel like they are being held hostage by a former partner and co-owner. Under these circumstances, a partition action may be the best option for a fresh start.
An action to quiet title allows a litigant to clear title or have the court establish title to a piece of real property where the title to that property is in the issue. Moreover, a quiet title action is not solely for the purpose of establishing a legal interest in real property but can also be asserted to establish an equitable interest in real property. For example, when two people claim that they own an entire piece of property, one of those parties may file a quiet title action to determine which one of the two persons actually holds title to the property.
Sometimes, however, the other party will refuse to participate in the lawsuit, which requires a party to win by “default.” In those circumstances, a question arises about what is necessary to do to succeed. The law explicitly addresses these circumstances.
Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 764.010 provides: “The court shall examine into and determine the plaintiff’s title against the claims of all the defendants. The court shall not enter judgment by default but shall, in all cases, require evidence of the plaintiff’s title and hear such evidence as may be offered to respect the claims of any of the defendants, other than claims the validity of which is admitted by the plaintiff in the complaint. The court shall render judgment in accordance with the evidence and the law.”
Yes, although the tenant is not allowed to exclude the non-consenting owners. The reason for this is grounded in ancient legal doctrine regarding the “right to possession” that all co-owners of property share together. Each owner may exercise this right, and each may grant it to a third party, should they so choose, even without the consent of the other owners.
While this may be legally allowed, however, it rarely results in anything other than trouble and lawsuits. In these situations, getting the right real estate attorney by your side can make all the difference. At the Underwood Law Firm, our attorneys are well-versed in the law surrounding co-ownership and the rights and duties accompanying it. Here, we’re with you every step of the way.
California Partition Law Blog