Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV03656, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03656    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Pink, et al., v. Pink

CASE NO.:                24SMCV03656

HEARING DATE:   6/12/2025

MOTION:                  Motion for Interlocutory Judgment of Partition

Legal Standard

“Under California law, the term ‘partition’ signifies ‘the procedure for segregating and terminating common interests in the same parcel of property.’¿ [Citation.]”¿ (14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Ass’n v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1404-1405 (Moorpark).)¿ Code of Civil Procedure, Part 2, Title 10.5 governs actions for partition of real property.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 872.020.)¿¿¿

A co-owner of real or personal property may bring an action for partition.¿(CCP § 872.210.)¿ The primary purpose of a partition suit is … to partition the property, that is, to sever the unity of possession.¿ Partition is a remedy much favored by the law.¿ The original purpose of partition was to permit co-tenants to avoid the inconvenience and dissension arising from sharing joint possession of land.¿ An additional reason to favor partition is the policy of facilitating transmission of title, thereby avoiding unreasonable restraints on the use and enjoyment of property.¿ [A]lthough the action of partition is of statutory origin in this state, it is nonetheless an equitable proceeding ….¿ [Citations.]”¿ (Cummings v. Dessel (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 589, 596-597.)¿

The court may enter an interlocutory judgment that determines the interests of the parties in the property and orders the partition of the property following trial. CCP section 872.710(a) states: “At the trial, the court shall determine whether the plaintiff has the right to partition.”¿CCP section 872.720(a) states that “[i]f 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.”¿

The court shall appoint a referee to divide or sell the property as ordered in the interlocutory judgment. (CCP § 873.010(a).)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale. Plaintiff contends that the parties’ relative interests are undisputed and that there has been no waiver of his right to partition.

The instant motion does not properly seek the entry of an interlocutory judgment for partition. Sections 872.710 and 872.720 require that a court’s determination regarding an interlocutory judgment be made at “trial.” (See Summers v. Superior Ct., (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 138, 144 [interlocutory judgment for partition on summary adjudication reversed because trial court lacked the authority to order the sale of the property before it determined the parties’ respective ownership interests].) Here, the Court has not determined that there is a right to partition or the parties’ relative interests at trial. Notably, in his answer, Defendant generally denied the complaint and set forth eleven affirmative defenses. The Court cannot conclude that the parties do not dispute the right to partition or their relative interests at this juncture. Plaintiff must either file a procedurally proper motion to adjudicate the issues (e.g., for summary judgment) or prove entitlement to partition at trial.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.