Chino Partition Lawyers

In its early days, the city of Chino was a popular stop for travelers during the California Gold Rush. The city was later incorporated in 1910. It wasn’t until the 1970s when the city of Chino developed into a small suburban city. Today, Chino is one of California’s fastest growing cities and Chino residents who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners. Generally, the best Chino 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

A top Chino Partition Attorney will be familiar with the appointment of receivers in partition actions. If the circumstances of the action require the appointment of a receiver, the superior court has the authority to appoint one as an ancillary remedy in a partition action among tenants-in-common. (see Blodgett v. Haddock (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 17, 18.)

Such an appointment may be made ex parte or without notice if the petition or supporting affidavits show an imperative necessity or emergency. (see Lent v. H.C. Morris Co. (1938) 25 Cal.App.2d 305, 308.) For example, the appointment may be made where it is necessary in order to protect the parties’ interests while the action is being prosecuted. (see Woodward v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (1892) 95 Cal. 272.) The best Chino Partition Attorney will be familiar with this process.

In an action by a tenant-in-common for partition, where a cotenant in sole possession is growing crop and refuses a tenant-in-common’s rights to the crop and threatens to sell the crop and seize the proceeds, an appointment of a receiver is proper. (see Baughman v Reed (1888) 75 Cal. 319.) If a spouse of a deceased life tenant has no rights in the property, but remains in possession of the property and unlawfully collects rents, without any means or assets to pay for any judgments relating to the unlawfully collected rents, an appointment of a receiver is also proper. (see Blodgett v. Haddock (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 17.) In an action where the co-owners threaten a purchaser of an undivided interest in the property to dispose the property and wind up the co-tenancy affairs without interference, an appointment of a receiver may also be proper. (see Chalta v. Biller (1931) 212 Cal. 745.) A person who intends to partition their property by sale should consult a top Chino Partition Lawyer to ensure that they adequately understand the process.

The ex parte appointment of a receiver is not proper in cases where no other co-owner is interfering with the co-owner’s common possession and use of the property or rights. (see Reas v. Clemence (1916) 173 Cal. 106.) If the parties cannot come to an agreement on who payments should be made to under a contract for the sale of parts of the property, the court may appoint a receiver to help with the final judgment in partition. (see Rich v. Smith, 26 Cal.App. 775.)

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