Partition Sales – Part 2: Results from Actual cases
Many times, legal articles appear to be abstract and theoretical talking about what could happen if a certain set of facts occurred. While that does provide legal guidelines, sometimes it is helpful to see how the law actually applied in real life situations.
The following will show you what has happened in actual Partition cases in which we represent a co-owner. The identities of the parties have been concealed to protect their privacy. This is just a sampling of cases we are handling and all are current matters in which sale has been compelled or is in the process.
1. San Francisco Building
Our client was one of several siblings that inherited a highly valuable downtown building. All of these new owners had competing ideas on what to do with the property… only one sibling wanted to keep it and the others wanted to sell. When the hold-out refused to go along with a sale, our client came to us for help. Using the law of Partition, we first served a Demand to Sell upon the hold-out and when he still refused, we filed suit for Partition and Sale in San Francisco. We subsequently obtained an Order forcing the sale of the Property through listing with a Licensed Realtor and our client came away with over $1 million in sale proceeds.
2. Danville Property
This was a second case for the same clients concerning a property in Contra Costa County. We went through the same process which is expected to yield the same result. The matter is currently set for a Summary Judgment hearing to compel the sale. Meanwhile, a possible buyer has been obtained and we’re negotiating a resolution to end the litigation and let the sale go through.
3. Loomis Property
Our client co-owns a property with a person who inherited his late brother’s interest. Our client wants to sell but the co-owner cannot be located. After sending a Demand to Sell to her last known address, we filed a lawsuit for Partition in Placer County Superior Court. We then served the lawsuit on the missing co-owner by publishing the Summons in a newspaper and within 30 days were able to take her Default. We then obtained an Order allowing our client to sell the Property and execute any sale document on behalf of the missing co-owner. The legal costs will be taken from the missing co-owner’s share of the sale proceeds.
4. Folsom Property
Our client and her then boyfriend purchased a Property in the early 2000s. Though their relationship later ended, their obligations on the Property loan and costs continued. Our client wanted to end the negative cash flow by selling the Property through a short sale but ex-boyfriend refused. So, after making a Demand for Sale, we filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court and, in September, obtained a Judgment ordering the Property to be sold.
Do you or your clients need this assistance? While all of our BPE Attorneys are experienced with real property issues, most of the above matters were handled in part or in full by our Associate Attorney, Gregory Wayland. If you need assistance, please feel free to contact Greg at gpwayland@bpelaw.com. Actual legal proceedings can be very complex although a great many resolve once a lawsuit has been filed and the reluctant owner realizes that the selling owner is serious.
For over 20 years, the attorneys of BPE Law Group, P.C. have been advising and representing property owners and real estate licensees in dealing with their legal concerns and maximizing their opportunities. If you have legal questions, give us a call at 916-966-2260 or e-mail me at sjbeede@bpelaw.com. Our flat fee consult for new clients may get you the answers you need for the questions you have.
The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every person’s situation is different. If you are facing a legal issue of any kind, get competent legal advice in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.
Many times, legal articles appear to be abstract and theoretical talking about what could happen if a certain set of facts occurred. While that does provide legal guidelines, sometimes it is helpful to see how the law actually applied in real life situations.
The following will show you what has happened in actual Partition cases in which we represent a co-owner. The identities of the parties have been concealed to protect their privacy. This is just a sampling of cases we are handling and all are current matters in which sale has been compelled or is in the process.
1. San Francisco Building
Our client was one of several siblings that inherited a highly valuable downtown building. All of these new owners had competing ideas on what to do with the property… only one sibling wanted to keep it and the others wanted to sell. When the hold-out refused to go along with a sale, our client came to us for help. Using the law of Partition, we first served a Demand to Sell upon the hold-out and when he still refused, we filed suit for Partition and Sale in San Francisco. We subsequently obtained an Order forcing the sale of the Property through listing with a Licensed Realtor and our client came away with over $1 million in sale proceeds.
2. Danville Property
This was a second case for the same clients concerning a property in Contra Costa County. We went through the same process which is expected to yield the same result. The matter is currently set for a Summary Judgment hearing to compel the sale. Meanwhile, a possible buyer has been obtained and we’re negotiating a resolution to end the litigation and let the sale go through.
3. Loomis Property
Our client co-owns a property with a person who inherited his late brother’s interest. Our client wants to sell but the co-owner cannot be located. After sending a Demand to Sell to her last known address, we filed a lawsuit for Partition in Placer County Superior Court. We then served the lawsuit on the missing co-owner by publishing the Summons in a newspaper and within 30 days were able to take her Default. We then obtained an Order allowing our client to sell the Property and execute any sale document on behalf of the missing co-owner. The legal costs will be taken from the missing co-owner’s share of the sale proceeds.
4. Folsom Property
Our client and her then boyfriend purchased a Property in the early 2000s. Though their relationship later ended, their obligations on the Property loan and costs continued. Our client wanted to end the negative cash flow by selling the Property through a short sale but ex-boyfriend refused. So, after making a Demand for Sale, we filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court and, in September, obtained a Judgment ordering the Property to be sold.
Do you or your clients need this assistance? While all of our BPE Attorneys are experienced with real property issues, most of the above matters were handled in part or in full by our Associate Attorney, Gregory Wayland. If you need assistance, please feel free to contact Greg at gpwayland@bpelaw.com. Actual legal proceedings can be very complex although a great many resolve once a lawsuit has been filed and the reluctant owner realizes that the selling owner is serious.
For over 20 years, the attorneys of BPE Law Group, P.C. have been advising and representing property owners and real estate licensees in dealing with their legal concerns and maximizing their opportunities. If you have legal questions, give us a call at 916-966-2260 or e-mail me at sjbeede@bpelaw.com. Our flat fee consult for new clients may get you the answers you need for the questions you have.
The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every person’s situation is different. If you are facing a legal issue of any kind, get competent legal advice in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.