Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV02015, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV02015, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02015 Hearing Date: September 26, 2024 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Daniel Romero Jr. v. Vilma G. Romero, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Value, and Send Buyout Notice

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS the motion in part and orders an appraisal of the subject property per Code of Civil Procedure section 874.316, subdivisions (a) and (d). The Court otherwise DENIES the motion without prejudice.

The Court will set a Status Conference re Appointment of Appraiser.

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

BACKGROUND

This is an action for partition of real property. On June 24, 2024, plaintiff Daniel G. Romero Jr. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Vilma G. Romero, individually, and as trustee of the Vilma Gladiz Romero Trust dated May 11, 2020 (Vilma), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), and Does 1 through 10, alleging the sole cause of action for partition.

On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff moved to determine the value of the subject property and to send buyout notices. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

(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

Plaintiff seeks a determination of the value of the subject property, 1710 East McKinley Avenue, Pomona, CA 91767 (the Property). Plaintiff contends a determination of value and a buyout notice is proper here. Plaintiff contends the Partition of Real Property Act applies here because Plaintiff filed this complaint on June 24, 2024, i.e., after January 1, 2023. Plaintiff 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, and Plaintiff owns a 1/3 interest in the Property while Vilma owns the other 2/3 interest. Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a valuation under Code of Civil Procedure section 874.316, subdivision (c), which permits the Court, after an evidentiary hearing, to determine the fair market value of the Property if the Court finds that the evidentiary value of the appraisal is outweighed by the cost of the appraisal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.316, subd. (c).) Plaintiff contends a buyout notice is appropriate, which would permit any cotenant to buy all of the interest of the cotenant who requested partition by sale under Code of Civil Procedure section 874.317, subdivision (b). Plaintiff then 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).)

Plaintiff further seeks an interlocutory judgment based on his 1/3 ownership interest in the Property and Vilma’s 2/3 ownership interest, in the event Vilma fails to comply with Sode of Civil Procedure section 874.317. Plaintiff seeks a partition by sale since the Property is a single-family home, the physical division of which is not practical since it would diminish the value of the Property compared to selling the Property as a whole. Plaintiff contends also it would be costly and would substantially diminish the value of the parties’ respective interests in the Property.

The Court finds that the most appropriate measure to take at this time would be to order an appraisal under Code of Civil Procedure section 874.316, subdivision (a). (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.316, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s motion fails to present any evidence to show why the cost of the appraisal would outweigh the evidentiary value of the appraisal. (Id., § 874.316, subd. (c).) The Court is not inclined to rely on valuations from various websites. (Romero Decl., Exs. A-C.) Moreover, the Court can only make a fair market value determination in lieu of an appraisal after holding an evidentiary hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.316, subd. (c).) No such hearing has occurred yet, nor has Plaintiff requested one.

Accordingly, the Court will order an appraisal of the Property per Code of Civil Procedure section 874.316, subdivision (d). (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.316, subds. (a), (d).) The Court will need to appoint a disinterested real estate appraiser licensed in the State of California. However, Plaintiff did not submit any appraisers for the Court to appoint. Once the appraisal is completed and filed with the Court, the Court will proceed as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 874.316, subdivisions (e), (f), and (g). (Id., § 874.316, subds. (e), (f), (g).) All other issues raised in Plaintiff’s motion will be addressed at a later point in time.

CONCLUSION

The Court will set a Status Conference re Appointment of Appraiser.

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