Indio Partition Lawyers

The city of Indio was originally a railroad town that began in the 1870s. Today, the city of Indio is known as the “City of Festival” and is currently the largest and fastest growing city in Riverside County’s Coachella Valley. With thousands of new planned housing developments in construction or being planned throughout Indio, residents who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners. Generally, the best Indio 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

In a partition action, there are issues involved with a jury trial, the separate trial of issues, and the dismissal and reopening of partition cases. The remedies and procedure of partition actions follow the principles and rules of equity more than those of law, making partition actions essentially actions in equity. (see Akley v. Bassett (1922) 189 Cal. 625.) In such actions, the court may determine whether the issues of fact shall be submitted to a jury. Although the submission to a jury is rare, in one case, the court held that it is optional whether such issues of fact are submitted to a jury. (see Lorenz v. Jacobs (1881) 59 Cal. 262.)

Trial courts have discretion in granting separate trials between a plaintiff and separate defendants in an action. As such, the court has authority to compel a plaintiff to continue with the trial of a title issue between the plaintiff and particular defendants who appeared and claimed sole ownership of the property without waiting for other defendants to appear if the issue is not of interest to them. (see Caldwell v. Regents of University of Cal (1st Dist. 1917) 35 Cal.App. 639.)

Generally, plaintiffs in partition actions of real property have a statutory right to dismiss the complaint voluntarily any time before the actual start of trial is cut off by the commencement of evidentiary proceedings before a referee. (CCP § 581(b)(1).) If a defendant requests affirmative relief in his or her answer, by requesting that there be no partition by sale of the property and also affirmatively requesting partition by division, dismissal is not proper. (see Gray v. Superior Court (1st Dist. 1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 165.)

Dismissal of an action as to that defendant is also not appropriate just because that defendant disclaimed any interest in the property unless that defendant’s disclaimer is absolute and unconditional. (see De Uprey v. De Uprey (1865) 27 Cal. 329.)

Even though a court’s decision to reopen a partition case after it has been submitted to the court and to permit proof of conveyances of special tracts by other co-owners may be erroneous in itself, a co-owner may not complain of the court’s action if it would not delay the decision of the case and cause no injury to that co-owner. (see East Shore Co. v. Richmond Belt Ry. (1916) 172 Cal. 174.)

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