MyLawyer Directory the #1 lawyers directory find Top Lawyers, Attorneys & Lawfirms

Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

Home Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy MyLawyers Directory

Rated: 2.19 / 5 | 2,045 listing views


United-States


General Audience


  • (951) 888-3300

  • 2900 Adams St Ste C225, Riverside CA, 92504

    SHARE THIS PAGE ON:

    A Little About Us

    Real estate, business and bankruptcy law in California. Call for a free consultation. 951-888-3300.



    Listing Details

    • Added:
    • May 13, 2020 08:55:27 PM
    • Submitted By:
    • Scott Talkov
    • Website Tags:

    Listing Statistics

    Add ReviewMe Button

    Review Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy at MyLawyer Directory

    Add SEO Score Button

    MyLawyer Directory Score

    Google Adsense™ Share Program

    Alexa Web Ranking: 439,669

    Alexa Ranking - Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

    Example Ad for Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

    This is what your Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy Listing Ad will look like to visitors! Of course you will want to use keywords and ad targeting to get the most out of your ad campaign! So purchase an ad space today before there all gone!

    https://www.mylawyer-directory.com

    .

    notice: Total Ad Spaces Available: (2) ad spaces remaining of (2)

    Advertise Here?

    • Listing specific ad placement
    • Customize the title link
    • Place a detailed description
    • It appears here within the content
    • Approved within 24 hours!
    • 100% Satisfaction
    • Or 3 months absolutely free;
    • No questions asked!

    Subscribe to Talkov Law Real Estate & Bankruptcy

    Partition by Sale in California

    What is a Partition by Sale? A partition action is the only court-ordered process in California to bring an end to co-ownership disputes by dividing real estate equitably among co-owners. California law allows for three manners of partition: partition in kind, partition by appraisal, and partition by sale. California partition statutes allow for all three ... Read...

    Partition by Sale in California Attorney Partition LawyerPartition by Sale in California Attorney Partition Lawyer

    What is a Partition by Sale?

    A partition action is the only court-ordered process in California to bring an end to co-ownership disputes by dividing real estate equitably among co-owners. California law allows for three manners of partition: partition in kind, partition by appraisal, and partition by sale. California partition statutes allow for all three methods, but partition by sale is by far the most common manner of partition. A partition by sale allows the court to force a sale of a jointly owned property and then distribute the proceeds of sale equitably among the co-owners.

    Single Family Homes Are Routinely Ordered Sold in a Partition by Sale

    While the law makes the process sound difficult, the elements are met in nearly every partition case, notably when it involves a single family residence. The law is that: “In order to compel a sale rather than a physical division, it must be shown that either: (1) a division into subparcels of equal value cannot be made, or (2) a division of the land would substantially diminish the value of each party’s interest, such that the portion received by each cotenant would be of substantially less value than the cash received on a sale.” [1]Right of partition—Partition by a sale of the property, 4 Cal. Real Est. (4th ed.) § 11:17

    In other words, a partition by sale is preferred when a partition in kind is either impossible or would greatly reduce the value of the property. In California, most partition actions occur with a single family home that is indivisible by a partition in kind, making a partition by sale the preferred manner of partition. Generally, the portion of the land with the home will be worth more than any land that could be divided where the home is not located. Accordingly, single family homes are almost universally ordered to be sold in a partition by sale.

    How Does Partition by Sale Work in California Law?

    When at least one party decides to force the sale of jointly owned property, they will file a petition for a partition action in the county in which the property is located, preferably with the guidance from a partition attorney. A lis pendens (notice of pendency of action) is then filed with the County Recorders Office, notifying anyone interested that there is a pending lawsuit related to the property. The case will then be heard before the court. Then, depending on the exact facts of the case, the judge will then determine whether a partition in kind or a partition by sale is appropriate.[2]California Code of Civil Procedure 872.820

    A partition by sale will be the preferred manner of partition in almost all situations in which a home holds the majority of the value in the real property. A partition referee will then be appointed by the court to market and sell the property. The referee is in charge of ensuring that the sale of the property is carried out with the best interests of all parties. Once the property is sold, the partition action continues to the second and final phase where the proceeds are distributed. Generally, those proceeds are divided based on the ownership interests. However, parties can raise the issue of partition offsets to obtain more than their fractional share.

    Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

    If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.

    References

    References
    1 Right of partition—Partition by a sale of the property, 4 Cal. Real Est. (4th ed.) § 11:17
    2 California Code of Civil Procedure 872.820


    Partition in Kind in California

    How Does Partition in Kind Work in California Law? A partition action in California is the only court-ordered process to bring an end to co-ownership disputes by dividing real estate equitably among co-owners. California law allows for three manners of partition: partition by sale, partition by appraisal, and partition in kind. A partition in kind is ... Read...

    Partition in Kind in California Attorney Partition LawyerPartition in Kind in California Attorney Partition Lawyer

    How Does Partition in Kind Work in California Law?

    partition action in California is the only court-ordered process to bring an end to co-ownership disputes by dividing real estate equitably among co-owners. California law allows for three manners of partition: partition by sale, partition by appraisal, and partition in kind. A partition in kind is a court ordered physical division of real property such that each co-owner receives a portion of land, “quality and quantity relatively considered, according to their interests in the property.” [1]48 Cal. Jur. 3d Partition § 76

    The law explained that: “The referee appointed by the court to make a division of the property shall divide the property and allot the several portions to the parties, quality and quantity relatively considered, according to their interests in the property as determined in the interlocutory judgment.” [2]California Code of Civil Procedure 873.210

    When a Physical Partition is Appropriate

    “Partition in kind is favored in law and in the absence of proof to the contrary the presumption in favor of in kind division will prevail.” [3]Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim, 136 Cal. App. 3d 360, 365, 186 Cal. Rptr. 252, 254 (Cal. App. 1982). In other words, a partition in kind is the default manner of partition.

    However, just because a partition in kind is the preferred method of partition in California doesn’t mean that it is the most common manner of partition. In fact, a partition in kind is extremely rare. Physical division of property is usually only used with vacant and/or undeveloped land because a home is not able to be physically divided by a partition in kind. Even if there is not a home on the property, factors including structures on the property, easements, fertile land, and oil reserves affect the equitable division of the property. Most partition actions will usually be resolved by a partition by sale in California.

    Partition-in-kind can be among the most complex manner of partition. Accordingly, it is important to hire an attorney with extensive experience in partition actions to understand the nature of the remedy and to advocate for an appropriate physical division of the property.

    Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

    If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.

    References

    References
    1 48 Cal. Jur. 3d Partition § 76
    2 California Code of Civil Procedure 873.210
    3 Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim, 136 Cal. App. 3d 360, 365, 186 Cal. Rptr. 252, 254 (Cal. App. 1982).


    Evicting a Sibling from an Inherited House

    Inheriting a Home with Siblings It is extremely common for family members to pass down real estate to younger generations. Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members may choose to leave their valuable real estate assets to family members they know and love. Commonly, siblings inherit a home together from a deceased parent. But ... Read...

    Evicting a Sibling from an Inherited House Real Estate AttorneyEvicting a Sibling from an Inherited House Real Estate Attorney

    Inheriting a Home with Siblings

    It is extremely common for family members to pass down real estate to younger generations. Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members may choose to leave their valuable real estate assets to family members they know and love. Commonly, siblings inherit a home together from a deceased parent. But just because siblings are now co-owners of a property together doesn’t mean that they will always agree on what to do with the property after the death of their parents.

    Sister or Brother is Living Rent Free in Your Inherited Home

    Perhaps your sister is living rent free in your inherited home, or maybe your brother won’t move out of your deceased parents’ house. Or maybe one sibling wants to live in the family home, another wants to rent it out to a third party, and a third wants to sell it.

    Frequently, the sibling lived in the inherited house before their parent passed away, sometimes because that sibling care for the parent in their final years of life. Perhaps the sibling living in the inherited house believes that mom or dad intended them to be able to live in the house for the rest of their life, as well. Generally, the trust or will makes no mention of such a life estate for the sibling living in the inherited house.

    Further complicating matters, often times, the sibling living in the inherited house has made this property their personal residence for many years such that they have no plans of moving elsewhere. Perhaps the family home is in an area or is of a quality that would be unaffordable to the sibling who is living there if they had to buy it on their own. In other words, if they were required to live within their own means, they would not be able to afford the family home.

    In California, the only way to equitably divide each co-owner’s interest in the property is to force the sale of the property through what is known as a partition action.

    Can I Evict a Sibling from our Deceased Parents’ Home?

    As co-owners of a property, you cannot evict a rightful co-owner. Indeed, “Each tenant in common equally is entitled to share in the possession of the entire property and neither may exclude the other from any part of it.” [1] Zaslow v. Kroenert (1946) 29 Cal. 2d 541, 548. The unlawful exclusion of a co-owner from a jointly owned property is known as ouster.

    In fact, co-owners generally cannot evict other unwanted house guests who may otherwise be a tenant-at-will. As one court explained, “a single cotenant [i.e., co-owner] may confer occupancy rights upon a third person.”[2]Miller & Starr, Right to lease or license to a third person, 4 Cal. Real Est. (4th ed.) § 11:3 (citing Atlantic Oil Co. v. Los Angeles County (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 585, 602) This means that your siblings family members can stay at the property unless you take action.

    How to Evict Siblings from an Inherited Property with Multiple Owners

    While co-owners have limited rights outside of court, they can force the sale of inherited property by initiating a court-ordered division of the property known as a partition action. In California, the “right to partition is absolute,” [3]Priddel v. Shankie (1945) 69 Cal.App. 2d 319, 325. meaning that any co-owner with any equity in the property may force the sale of the property through a partition action.

    After a partition action is filed, anyone residing on the property will be removed in connection with the property being sold. So, while you cannot “evict” a beneficiary living in an inherited house through an unlawful detainer action (also known as an eviction), it is possible to accomplish the same result to have the sibling and anyone else living there removed from the property in connection with selling the inherited house.

    How Do I Remove my Sibling from the Inherited Property so It Can be Sold?

    Once a partition action has commenced, a partition referee will be assigned to market and sell the property. The partition referee is a neutral third party whose fiduciary duty is to protect the interests of the co-owners of the property. To best ensure that all parties receive their equitable portion of the sale of the property, a partition referee may hire professionals to repair or maintain the property. Most importantly, the partition referee can be empowered to change the locks and remove your sibling and any other current residents from your parents’ house as part of the sale.

    How Can a Partition be Used to Evict My Sibling from the Inherited Home?

    This partition referee’s authority to evict a sibling from an inherited home gnerally arises under the court’s ability to “make any decrees and orders necessary or incidental to carrying out the purposes of this title and to effectuating its decrees and orders.”[4]California Code of Civil Procedure 872.120 It also arises from the court’s right to “issue temporary restraining orders and injunctions…for the purpose of… Preventing waste” or “Restraining unlawful interference with a partition of the property ordered by the court.”[5]California Code of Civil Procedure 872.130 In other words, if your sibling is refusing to cooperate with the orderly sale of the property in a partition, the court can empower the referee to ensure compliance by removing them from the property. As a practical matter, once the partition judgment empowers the referee to take such actions, the sibling in possession usually sees the wisdom of cooperation.

    In other words, a partition referee will take care of accomplishing the same result as an eviction by removing the uncooperative sibling and make sure the property is in tip top shape to be sold so you receive your maximum equitable portion of the proceeds of sale. You may even recover attorney’s fees, costs, offsets, reimbursements, and credits through the accounting process of a partition action, especially if your sibling is uncooperative. Luckily, eviction after death of an owner is possible by forcing the sale of the property through a partition action.

    Partitions Against Siblings are Extremely Common

    If you have inherited a family home with a sibling who refuses to sell, perhaps because they are living in the inherited home without paying rent, understand that you are not alone. This common method of estate planning of leaving the family home to each of the siblings equally often results in conflicts between the siblings. Those conflicts are only further exacerbated by dysfunctional interfamily relationships, prior family disagreements, and the lack of a parent to keep order among the family.

    Co-owning a house with a sibling comes with its own challenges. Indeed, perhaps the sibling feels entitled to certain rights in the house or offsets from the sale because of matters having nothing to do with the family home, or because of their personal financial situation.

    Ultimately, many siblings who inherit a family home conclude that they would never have voluntarily become co-owners of a house with their siblings, and that they must now act to end the involuntary co-ownership. Accordingly, by filing a partition action, the siblings unlock the equity that their parents left to enrich their lives, not just the life of the sibling living in the inherited home.

    Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

    If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.

    References

    References
    1 Zaslow v. Kroenert (1946) 29 Cal. 2d 541, 548.
    2 Miller & Starr, Right to lease or license to a third person, 4 Cal. Real Est. (4th ed.) § 11:3 (citing Atlantic Oil Co. v. Los Angeles County (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 585, 602)
    3 Priddel v. Shankie (1945) 69 Cal.App. 2d 319, 325.
    4 California Code of Civil Procedure 872.120
    5 California Code of Civil Procedure 872.130


    Partition by Appraisal in California

    How Does Partition by Appraisal Work in California law? A partition action in California is a court-ordered process to bring an end to co-ownership disputes by dividing real estate equitably among co-owners. California law allows for three manners of partition: partition by sale, partition in kind, and partition by appraisal. While partition by sale is ... Read...

    Partition by Appraisal Partition Attorney Real Estate LawyerPartition by Appraisal Partition Attorney Real Estate Lawyer

    How Does Partition by Appraisal Work in California law?

    A partition action in California is a court-ordered process to bring an end to co-ownership disputes by dividing real estate equitably among co-owners. California law allows for three manners of partition: partition by sale, partition in kind, and partition by appraisal. While partition by sale is by far the most common manner of partition, California partition statutes allows for the rarely-used method of partition by appraisal. A partition by appraisal is described as “An alternative to a division or sale of the property . . . under which one or more parties acquires the interests of the others at their appraised value.” [1]Partition by Appraisal., (2021) 12 Witkin, Summary 11th Real Prop § 81

    The text of California Code of Civil Procedure 873.910 provides that: “When the interests of all parties are undisputed or have been adjudicated, the parties may agree upon a partition by appraisal pursuant to this chapter.”

    Partition by Appraisal Requires the Consent of All Co-Owners

    Parties seeking to oppose a partition by sale may urge the court to order a partition by appraisal. However, such a request is improper absent agreement of the parties to partition by appraisal. As the 1976 Law Revision Comment to this section explains that: “The purpose of this chapter is to provide an alternative method of partition for coowners who agree to use this method.” Indeed, this manner of partition is strictly reserved for those co-owners who explicitly agree to a partition by appraisal.

    From a practical standpoint, the partition by appraisal statutory scheme is rarely used as reflected by the lack of case law interpreting the partition by appraisal statutes. This is presumably because it requires all parties to agree on who will be the buyer and the use of an appraiser. If these co-owners are willing to work together to agree to a partition by appraisal, it is unclear why the parties would need judicial oversight. Indeed, there is nothing that prevents parties from simply hiring an appraiser and deciding a buyout price without filing a partition action.

    Partition by appraisal would generally occur when both parties agree that one or more of the co-owners can remain as owner(s) of the property and agrees to buy out the other co-owner(s). These other co-owner(s) must agree to have their interests bought out of the jointly owned property or else a partition by appraisal is not applicable.

    Partitions by Appraisal are Rare in California

    However, most partitions are filed because the parties are not in agreement. Sometimes, this is because one or more of the co-owners have taken an unreasonable position. In response, the party filing the partition against a co-owner that wishes to buy the property gains an advantage by forcing the sale. Through that forced sale, it is possible that another buyer will show up to pay more for the property, perhaps more than the other co-owner can pay or will pay. This uncertainty often leads to settlements that are fair and equitable to the co-owner who files the partition.

    In other words, co-owners generally select a partition by sale, absent the rare situations usually involving vacant land where partition in kind is more appropriate. However, if you have a tenant in common (TIC) agreement or other document that allows for partition by appraisal, this may be a viable option.

    Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

    If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.

    References

    References
    1 Partition by Appraisal., (2021) 12 Witkin, Summary 11th Real Prop § 81


    Summers v. Superior Court (2018) Ownership Interests Determined Before Partition Judgment Entered

    In the world of partition actions in California, lawyers have misunderstood the California Court of Appeal opinion in Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 138 as meaning that the interests of parties in the proceeds of sale must be determined before the court can enter an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale. In ... Read...

    Summers v. Superior Court (2018) Ownership Interests Determined Before Partition Judgment EnteredSummers v. Superior Court (2018) Ownership Interests Determined Before Partition Judgment Entered

    In the world of partition actions in California, lawyers have misunderstood the California Court of Appeal opinion in Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 138 as meaning that the interests of parties in the proceeds of sale must be determined before the court can enter an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale. In reality, Summers v. Superior Court merely found that the ownership interests of the parties in the property must be determined, e.g., that the parties each own a 50% interest in the property, before a partition judgment can be entered.

    Specifically, California Code of Civil Procedure 872.720(a) is the California partition statute that allows the court to enter an interlocutory judgment of partition, thereby finding that a partition will be entered in the case. The statute provides that:

    If the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to partition, it shall make an interlocutory judgment that determines the interests of the parties in the property and orders the partition of the property and, unless it is to be later determined, the manner of partition.

    Partition attorneys seeking to avoid the ruling that a partition judgment should be entered may try to quote only the following sentence in Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 138, 143: “The trial court’s ruling here failed to satisfy these elements because it ordered the property to be sold before the parties’ interests were resolved.” In turn, defendants in a partition action may mistakenly argue that “the interests of the parties in the property” that must be determined means the interests of the parties to any accounting claims of offset in a partition action. Indeed, almost every partition can include some type of claim of offset.

    In reality, the phrase is in reference to the“ownership interests” of the parties. Indeed, this is made clear in Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 138, 143, which later “conclude[d] that the trial court lacked the authority to order the sale of the property before it determined the parties’ respective ownership interests.” in fact, Summers explained “the statute’s plain requirement that the parties’ ownership interests be determined before or when the manner of partition is decided.”

    In case this isn’t clear enough, Summers followed Stoffer v. Verhellen (1925) 195 Cal. 317, 318, where “[t]he plaintiff alleged ownership, as tenant in common with the defendant, of an undivided half interest in the property, with like interest in the defendant.” In Stoffer, “the defendant…den[ied] that the plaintiff had any interest in the property.” The Stoffer court concluded that, where “[t]he interlocutory decree entered in this case is entirely silent as to the quantity of interest of either of the parties to the proceedings, [it] is erroneous in that respect.”

    In fact, a 2019 case explained this exact meaning of Summers as follows:

    “Interests,” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 872.720, refers to ownership interests. Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 138, 140, 143-144.

    Green v. Green-Jordan (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2019) No. E070721, 2019 WL 4233918, at *6 (unpublished).

    Plaintiffs in partition actions must enforce their right to partition through skilled lawyering to ensure that courts correctly understand when a court may proceed to end the co-ownership relationship.

    Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

    If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.


    Can I Collect Rental Value from my Co-Owner in a Partition Action?

    It has been well established that co-owners do not forfeit co-ownership rights if they have moved out of a jointly owned property. However, issues can still arise quickly in a partition action when a co-owner in possession (the co-owner who resides at or primarily manages a property) feels that the co-owner out of possession (the ... Read...

    Co-owner out of possession collect rent from co-owner in possession partion lawyer real estate attorneyCo-owner out of possession collect rent from co-owner in possession partion lawyer real estate attorney

    It has been well established that co-owners do not forfeit co-ownership rights if they have moved out of a jointly owned property. However, issues can still arise quickly in a partition action when a co-owner in possession (the co-owner who resides at or primarily manages a property) feels that the co-owner out of possession (the co-owner of a property who resides elsewhere) is disproportionately benefitting from their portion of ownership in the property.

    A common example is when a tenant-in-possession pays for all repairs and maintenance on a jointly owned property but the tenant out of possession believes that they should receive their percentage of the rental value of the property. This often arises when the last surviving parent leaves the family home to each of the siblings equally, but the sibling who cared for the parent before they passed decides to stay at the house without any paying rental value to the other siblings. Indeed, had the property been rented out, all co-owners would generally share in the rental income based on their percentage interest in the property.

    The dedicated partition attorneys at Talkov Law have experience achieving the best result when issues arise over the rental value claimed against tenants-in-possession.

    Can a co-owner out of possession collect rental value or mortgage payments from the tenant in possession of co-owned property?

    California Code of Civil Procedure 872.140 states that “The court may, in all cases, order allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustment among the parties according to the principles of equity.” Issues can arise quickly when co-owners in the midst of a partition action disagree on reimbursements for improvements to the property, the rental value, mortgage payments, and other costs associated with the upkeep or maintenance of the property.

    Generally, “[t]he rule is that when one tenant in common has paid a debt or obligation for the benefit of the joint property . . . he is entitled as a matter of right to have his cotenant, who has received the benefit of it, refund to him his proportionate share of the amount paid.” [1]Conley v. Sharpe, (1943) 58 Cal. App. 2d 145, 155–56. However, with the exception of an ouster, “a cotenant out of possession has no right to recover the rental value of the property from a cotenant in possession.” [2]Estate of Hughes v. Ben G. Patton, (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1607, 1611.

    “While we are in accord with defendant as to the settled rule that, in the absence of agreement between them, one tenant cannot maintain an action against his cotenant in exclusive possession to recover rent for the latter’s occupancy of the property . . . ‘The later cases amply show that when, in a suit for partition or a sale for division, or other proceeding between cotenants in equity or in which equitable powers may be exerted, a cotenant who has been in possession or use of the premises seeks to obtain contribution respecting improvements made, or amounts expended in protection or preservation of the property, the court, as incidental to the granting of such relief and by way of adjusting the rights of the parties, may charge the claimant, defensively, with at least a part of the reasonable value of his occupancy or use, and in some cases may hold him accountable for profits realized from the premises, even though he could not otherwise be required to account or be held liable respecting any of such benefits.’” [3]Hunter v. Schultz (1966) 240 Cal.App. 2d 24, 30–31.

    Indeed, the Court of Appeal has stated the general rule is that “a cotenant out of possession has no right against another in exclusive possession of the premises to recover a share of the profits derived from the common property by reason of the labor and expenditure of the cotenant in possession . . .” [4]Teixeira v. Verissimo, (1966) 239 Cal. App. 2d 147, 155.

    Hunter suggests that a tenant out of possession may only receive rental value defensively to reduce the offset against them to zero, meaning they can avoid paying maintenance or repair costs to the tenant in possession. In other words, the finding in Schultz would not allow the tenant out of possession to recover such rent, but would allow them to avoid paying the tenant in possession. This also means that a co-owner in possession attempting to offensively claim offsets owned to them by the co-owner out of possession will likely not be able to do so.

    For example, we commonly see situations in which a tenant in possession pays for everything – all maintenance, repair, improvements, mortgage, taxes, and other costs associated with the jointly owned property. The tenant out of possession then believes they are entitled to thousands of dollars in rental value from the tenant in possession. Schultz suggests that the tenant in possession cannot offensively demand money owed by the tenant out of possession, including mortgage payments, repairs, etc. The tenant out of possession, however, may defensively argue to get the rental value offset to $0, meaning that they do not owe their co-owner, the tenant in possession, anything.

    Contact an Experienced Partition Attorney in California

    If you want to end your co-ownership relationship, but your co-owner won’t agree, a partition action is your only option. Our experienced partition lawyers have years of experience ending co-ownership disputes and can help you unlock the equity in your property. For a free, 15 minute consultation with an experienced partition attorney at Talkov Law, call (844) 482-5568 or fill out a contact form online.

    References

    References
    1 Conley v. Sharpe, (1943) 58 Cal. App. 2d 145, 155–56.
    2 Estate of Hughes v. Ben G. Patton, (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1607, 1611.
    3 Hunter v. Schultz (1966) 240 Cal.App. 2d 24, 30–31.
    4 Teixeira v. Verissimo, (1966) 239 Cal. App. 2d 147, 155.


    Other Related Listings

    Link to Category: Bankruptcy Lawyers

    Or if you prefer use one of our linkware images? Click here

    MyLawyer is an index of a the best laywers and attorneys around the world