California Partition Law Blog
Generally, when a trial court orders an interlocutory judgment directing a partition by sale, it can appoint a referee to conduct the sale (CCP § 873.010). However, when a party to the partition feels that they have been aggrieved by the actions of this court-appointed referee, they may bring an action against them.
When this occurs, the party may contend that the referee violated some fiduciary duties or committed some torts while performing the role appointed to them by the court. However, when a role is appointed by a court, the person holding that role may be entitled to what is known as quasi-judicial immunity.
What is Quasi-Judicial Immunity?
California Code of Civil Procedure section 872.130 expands the court’s authority in an effort to make the court system more efficient when ordering a property to be partitioned. The section allows the court to issue temporary restraining orders and injunctions without the hurdles of contempt or general provisions to make such orders. 
Partitions sales and foreclosure sales are two different ways that a property can be sold. The main difference between the two is the purpose behind the two sales. For partition sales, the purpose is to divide the property and for the owners to get the proceeds in proportion to their ownership. The purpose of foreclosure sales is to pay off a borrower’s loan. 
Partitions sales and probate 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 probate sale is generally overseen by a personal representative, and the court can have minimal involvement. There are also specific steps that the personal representative must take in the probate sale process under California law. 
The California Code of Civil Procedure plays a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape of civil actions. The California Partition Law starts at section 872.010 and ends at section 874.323. Among the partition provisions, section 872.030 highlights the importance of consistency in the application of laws in partition actions. Section 872.030 applies the general rules of civil actions to partition actions unless they are inconsistent with the partition statute. If the Partition Law differs from the general sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Partition Law trumps the other section because partition actions are tailored to the unique nature of partition disputes and often have specialized requirements. 
Partitions sales and divorce sales are two different ways that a property can be sold. One difference between the two is that in a partition sale, the court usually decides the proportion of ownership and how the proceeds are distributed among the owners, while in a divorce sale, the court generally must divide the property equally. Another difference is that the divorce sale process is similar to a normal real estate sale. Both sales can be determined informally among the parties or ordered by a court. 
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.
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.” (
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.
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.