Lake Forest Partition Lawyers

The city of Lake Forest was originally known as El Toro from 1863. Although the city was only incorporated in 1991, Lake Forest has a long history and started out as an agricultural area. Today, over 70% of housing units are owner-occupied. As such, residents of Lake Forest who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners. Generally, the best Lake Forest 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 an answer to a partition action, the defendant is required to set forth: “(a) any interest the defendant has or claims in the property; (b) any facts intending to controvert such material allegations of the complaint as the defendant does not wish to be taken as true; and (c) where the defendant seeks sale of the property, an allegation of the facts justifying such relief in ordinary and concise language.” (CCP § 872.410.) If a defendant only admits the complaint’s material allegations by stating that the present sale of the property would be misguided, the plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment on the pleadings. (see Harper v. Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco (1st Dist. 1934) 140 Cal.App. 5.)

The requirement that the defendant must set forth any interest or claims he or she has in the property also includes liens and other interests claimed by the defendant. (see Cal. L. Rev. Comm. Comment to CCP § 872.410.) If the defendant lists his or her liens on the property, the defendant must include the date, character, and amount remaining due on the lien in the answer. (CCP § 872.420.) The statutory provision does not preclude the defendant from setting forth any additional costs, fees, and expenses regarding the lien that the defendant may be entitled to as well as the amount remaining due on the lien itself. (see Cal. L. Revision Comm. Comment to CCP § 872.420.)

Interlocutory decrees of partition are final as to any title the defendant acquired after the defendant has filed the answer and before execution of the interlocutory decree, except if the answer is revised to include the new title. (see Christy v. Spring Valley Water-works (1890) 84 Cal. 541, 542-543.) It is not erroneous for the court to hold that the subject matter of the affirmative allegations in the answer is not involved in the issues of the partition action if one defendant pleads that he or she not only has an interest in the disputed property, but also an interest in water rights and serves the answer only to the plaintiff. (see Tu Junga Co. v. Barclay (2d Dist. 1909) 11 Cal.App. 60.) The defendant may also set forth any claim that he or she has for contribution or compensatory adjustment. (CCP § 872.430.)

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