![plaintiff didn plaintiff didn](https://www.blumberg.com/cluster_images/319-judgment-on-default-civil-court.jpg)
For instance, maybe certain co-owners didn’t respond because they’re located across the country, and expending time and money to retain counsel in California is just too burdensome.
![plaintiff didn plaintiff didn](https://tutorstips.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Bill-of-supply-Format-Under-GST-.png)
That said, one can drum up a myriad of situations where this justification is plainly wrong. The NCCUSL justifies this provision by arguing that it “is intended to foster consolidation of interests among active cotenants (which makes any division in kind that may ultimately be needed easier for a court to accomplish), and to provide a fund of money based on a court-approved appraisal of land value… for the benefit of those cotenants who have not been located or who fail to appear and participate in the action.” (UPHPA Final Act with Comments (2010) p. In other words, they can buy out the interests of those parties who are in default. In plain English, this means that the defendants who actually appeared (by filing an answer or responsive pleading) can buy out not only the plaintiff’s interest, but also the interests of the defendants who did not appear. The text of the code states that, within 45 days of the regular buy-out procedures, any cotenant entitled to participate in the buyout may request the court to authorize a sale of the interests “of cotenants named as defendants and served with the complaint, but that did not appear in the action.” (CCP § 874.317 (g).)
![plaintiff didn plaintiff didn](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/sampledemandforbillofparticulars-130213011853-phpapp01/95/sample-demand-for-bill-of-particulars-for-california-3-1024.jpg)
Of the many interesting things the Partition of Real Property Act does, this may be the most head-scratching and potentially misguided. Surprisingly, the answer is yes, although it’s discretionary. But even though the act is particular to California, it is actually derived from the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (“UPHPA”).īecause of the similarity between the laws, and in order to deliver the most comprehensive understanding of the Partition of Real Property Act, this guide references law review notes, statutes, and appellate decisions from other states interpreting the UPHPA.Ĭan you buy out the interest of a co-owner who didn’t appear in the lawsuit? 82 § 3 (AB 2245).) It brought significant changes to how partitions are conducted in the state, if the underlying parties are tenants in common. For complete comprehension, read more on it here, here, and here.Īs a quick summary, the Partition of Real Property Act is a law specific to California, passed in July 2022. This is a continuation of our ongoing series on the Complete Guide to the Partition of Real Property Act. Real Property Law The Complete Guide to the Partition of Real Property Act (Part 4)