Tustin Partition Lawyers

The City of Tustin was first settled in 1769 with the Portola Expedition and used to be known as the “City of Trees.” Today, most of the town’s citrus trees have been replaced by homes, schools, shopping centers and industry. Residents of Tustin who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners. Generally, the best Tustin 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

Whether the parties in the complaint are named as plaintiffs or defendants, they are all considered actors who are representing his or her own interest. The parties have the same rights as any other party. As such, each party may arrange the nature and extent of his or her interests in the property in dispute and have them adjudged. (see Grant v. Murphy (1897) 116 Cal. 427.)

Because partition actions are equitable and all claims and interests in the property may be determined in it, any party with interest in the land subject to partition alleged to come from a set of leases, conveyances, agreements, and assignments are necessary and proper parties. (see Bacon v. Wahrhaftig (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 599.) Codefendants are proper, if not necessary parties if the complaint sets forth that one defendant has acquired an undivided two-thirds interest in the property from the other codefendants, knowing that the plaintiff has a claim against the codefendants for money advanced on their portion of the purchase price, and judgment is rightly rendered against them for the amount of money advanced. (see Donnelly v. Wetzel (1918) 37 Cal.App.741.)

The statutory provisions governing partition require that the plaintiff join all parties the plaintiff knows, or are reasonably apparent from a property inspection, who have or claim interest in the property or estate subject to the partition action. (CCP § 872.510.) It is important that all the co-owners of the property be made parties as defendants as the purpose of the suit will fail of accomplishment for the failure to name a co-owner. Thus, it is the court’s duty to ensure that the co-owner is brought in and made a party. (see Solomon v. Redona, (1921) 52 Cal.App. 300.) The Code of Civil Procedure may also require the joinder of additional parties whom are indispensable by court order. (Legislative Comm. Comment to § CCP 872.510.)

Where there has been a void conveyance, it is unnecessary to join the person. (see Pfeiffer v. Regents of University of California (1887) 74 Cal. 156.) The plaintiff is not required to join a party as a defendant if his or her only interest in the property is that of a lessee, and the judgment from the partition action shall not affect the interests of those persons not joined. (CCP § 872.540.)

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