Compton Partition Lawyer

The City of Compton was first settled in 1867 by a group of 30 pioneers who were led by Griffith Dickenson Compton in an effort to find other methods of earning a living at the end of the California Gold Rush. For many years, Compton was an affluent city, with spacious and beautiful single-family homes. Today, Compton is most famously known as the home to the world's most famous rappers. As a town rich in history, many Compton residents may own property jointly, due to inheritance. As such, residents of Compton may face disputes with co-owners. Generally, a partition action is 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

Recently, the California Court of Appeal addressed the importance of admissible evidence to show a transferor's intent in transferring property in a case decided by the Second District Court of Appeal known as Brown v. Brown (2022) WL 2964977.

There, one sister, Jessica, inherited property from her father, and the other sister, Lachey, sought an action for quiet title, imposition of constructive trust, declaratory relief, and partition, alleging that her father's transfer to Jessica created a trust for his benefit during his lifetime, and that her father's intent was for Jessica to transfer a half interest in the Property to Lachey following his death. Jessica moved for summary judgment, denying Lachey's allegations.

The trial court held that "without the most important factual element established or demonstrated even by a scintilla of competent admissible evidence, none of the cases cited by plaintiff apply," and granted Jessica's motion because Lachey failed to offer competent admissible evidence that her father intended for Jessica to transfer 50% of the Property to Lachey. Lachey appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding "matters which would be excluded under the rules of evidence if proffered by a witness in a trial as hearsay, conclusions or impermissible opinions, must be disregarded in supporting affidavits." (Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The Court of Appeal stated that "a resulting trust arises from a transfer of property under circumstances showing that the transferee was not intended to take the beneficial interest. Such a resulting trust carries out and enforces the inferred intent of the parties." (Lloyd Bank California v. Wells Fargo Bank (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1042.) Whereas Lachey's declarations were hearsay or merely statements of conclusion or opinion, lacking foundation, and not statements of fact, Jessica offered the grant deed and a declaration as evidence of their father's intent for Jessica to be the sole owner. Jessica's evidence in addition to the rebuttable presumption that as her father's child, the deed was a gift or advancement, and her father's contemporaneous transfer of other real estate to Lachey and Lachey's mother, show that their father's intent to transfer the Property was for Jessica's sole benefit. As such, the Appellate Court determined Lachey failed to meet her burden of establishing a triable issue of material fact as there was a lack of admissible evidence of their father's intent to benefit Lachey.

In order to start resolving these situations, you should contact an experienced Compton Partition Lawyer as soon as you are ready to start the next chapter of your life.