Walnut Creek Partition Lawyers

The City of Walnut Creek was first settled in 1849 and later incorporated on October 21, 1914. The city’s population began to take off in 1951 when the Broadway Shopping Center opened and has continued to rapidly accelerate since then. As over 60% of housing in Walnut Creek is owner-occupied, this suggests that many homes are jointly owned. Residents of Walnut Creek who own real estate may face disputes with co-owners. Generally, the best Walnut Creek 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

Where the plaintiff does not know the name of the person described in Code of Civil Procedure § 872.510, concerning the joinder of defendants, the plaintiff must state so in the complaint. (CCP § 872.520(a).) The plaintiff may join the defendants by naming them “all persons unknown claiming interest in the property,” if the partition is sought as to all of the interests in the land. (CCP § 872.550.) The statutory provision allows the plaintiff to give the partition action an in rem effect. (Assembly Legislative Comm. Comment to 872.550.) Additionally, the judge will order for the joinder of other necessary or proper parties on its own motion or the motion of any of the parties. (CCP § 872.520(c).)

Critically, Code of Civil Procedure section 872.510 states, “The plaintiff shall joint as defendants in the action all persons having or claiming interests of record or actually known to the plaintiff or reasonably apparent from an inspection of the property, in the estate as to which partition is sought.” (emphasis added)

The purpose of statutory provisions governing partition is to make the single judgment of partition final and conclusive as to all interested parties and not to allow the matter to be taken up piece by piece. As such, the statutory provision is made to bring in tenants in common as well as other persons with future rights or interests in the property. (see Withington v. Collins (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 110, 114.) If a person’s ownership, share, or quantity of the interest is unknown, uncertain, or contingent, then the plaintiff must set this forth in the complaint.

If the reasons for the lack of knowledge, uncertainty, or contingency is the transfer to an unborn or unascertained person or class member, or by a transfer in the form of a contingent remainder, vested remainder subject to defeasance, executory interest, or similar disposition, the plaintiff must set forth in the complaint to the extent of the plaintiff’s knowledge: (1) the name, age, and legal disability of the person in being who would be entitled to ownership of the interest; and (2) the fact that the contingency on which the right of such person depends occurred before the suit in partition commenced. (CCP § 872.520(b).) If the court finds that the appointment of guardians ad litem is necessary and proper, it will do so on its own motion or on motion of any party. (CCP § 872.520(c).

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

Client Reviews
“We were in need of a real estate attorney. Eli Underwood provided excellent legal advice and services. He explained everything well and followed through with all important issues that needed attention. We found him to be reliable, courteous, patient and extremely professional. We highly recommend Mr. Underwood without any reservations.” I.S.
"I own a real estate investment company that operates across multiple states (California, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and more), whenever I run into an issue that needs legal attention, Eli is my first call. I've been working with him for years. He is an amazing attorney and I highly recommend him." Thank you for your help Sir!" T.W.
"Mr. Underwood is a fantastic Lawyer with extraordinary ethics. He responds quickly, which is rare these days, and he is very knowledgeable in his craft. It was a pleasure working with him and we will definitely use his services in the future if needed. Thank you for your help Sir!" M.O.
"Eli took our case and controlled every hurdle put before us. I one time commented to him that he must love his job because it seemed that he was always available. When talking about my case to anyone I always bring up where, I believe, the other parties Lawyer tried to take advantage of my wife and me. Eli stopped him in his tracks. On top of it being easy to work with Eli, it was a pleasure to have had him represent us. We were in good hands." E.T
"We were in need of an attorney with considerable knowledge of real estate law and the legal issues related to property ownership. Eli Underwood went above and beyond our expectations. In keeping us abreast of our suit, his communication skills were outstanding. This talent was especially demonstrated when dealing with the apposing counsel. We feel this gave us a tremendous advantage over the opposing party that resulted in us reaching a successful outcome. I would highly recommend Eli Underwood as we found him to be an exceptional attorney." P.B.
"In our need for legal services we found Eli to be well informed and on top of our case and our needs. Our's was not an ordinary case as it was a case with many facets. It was a very convoluted case. There were multiple owners involved in a property dispute where one of the owners sued the rest of the owners with a Partition Suit. Needless to say Eli was instrumental in helping us resolve our differences and gained us a profitable sale all with good end results for all. If you hire Eli Underwood you will not be disappointed!" M.A.