TENTATIVE RULING

The Court DENIES the motion for an appraisal of the subject property as moot.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

REASONING

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the court shall determine the fair market value of the property by ordering an appraisal pursuant to subdivision (d).

(b) If all cotenants have agreed to the value of the property or to another method of valuation, the court shall adopt that value or the value produced by the agreed method of valuation.

(c) If the court determines that the evidentiary value of an appraisal is outweighed by the cost of the appraisal, the court, after an evidentiary hearing, shall determine the fair market value of the property and send notice to the parties of the value.

(d) If the court orders an appraisal, the court shall appoint a disinterested real estate appraiser licensed in the State of California to determine the fair market value of the property assuming sole ownership of the fee simple estate. On completion of the appraisal, the appraiser shall file a sworn or verified appraisal with the court.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 874.316, subds. (a), (c), (d).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant/Cross Complainant seeks a determination of the value of the subject property, 4832 Escalon Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90043 (the "Property").  

Defendant contends a determination of value and a buyout notice is proper here. Defendant contends the Partition of Real Property Act applies here because the parties are tenants in common and Plaintiff filed this complaint after January 1, 2023. Defendant also contends there is no agreement in the record that governs the partition of the Property between the parties, the parties hold title as tenants in common.  Defendant requests the Court to determine the fair market value of the Property by ordering an appraisal per Code of Civil Procedure section 874.316, subdivision (a), and then the Court sends a buyout notice under subdivision (d) of the same code section. (Id., § 874.316, subds. (a), (d).)

In response to this motion, Plaintiff filed a Request to Dismiss the first cause of action for partition. Therefore the only cause of action remaining is for an accounting.  Plaintiff contends that this renders the motion for an appraisal moot.

Plaintiff’s dismissal of the first cause of action for partition renders Defendant’s motion moot as section 874.316 applies only to partition causes of action.  A cause of action for accounting is still pending.  Defendant, as a tenant in common, retains the right to request a partition, however his Cross-Complaint, filed May 30, 2024, does not currently contain a cause of action for partition of the property.  The motion for a court ordered appraisal is denied without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES the motion for an appraisal of the subject property without prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.