No. Changing the locks on a property you co-own without your co-owner’s permission is most likely an ouster under California law that exposes you to damages, and is the wrong long term solution to resolve a co-ownership dispute.

A partition action is the proper legal route to end the co-ownership, recover what you are owed, and avoid the self-help liability that comes with locking your co-owner out.

California treats every co-owner as having an equal right to possession of the property, regardless of how much they paid or what percentage they hold. You cannot eject your co-owner by force, by threat, or by changing the locks. The only lawful way to end the co-ownership is in court.

Changing the Locks Without Co-Owner Consent Triggers Ouster in a California Partition Action

Every co-owner of a California property has an equal right of possession. This rule applies to both tenancy in common and joint tenancy co-ownership structures, and it does not depend on percentage interest.

For example, a co-owner who holds 90% of the property has the same right to possession as a co-owner who holds 10%. Neither can lock the other out unilaterally — and a minority owner can still force a partition even over the majority’s objection.

When you change the locks and prevent your co-owner from entering, the law calls that exclusion ouster. Ouster is the wrongful exclusion of a co-owner from joint possession of the property. A change of locks is the textbook example.

It does not matter that your co-owner is uncooperative, that you pay more of the bills, or that you live there full-time. Self-help is not the preferred remedy under California law. The remedy is a partition action.

Ouster Exposes You to Damages and Rental Value Charges in a California Partition Action

The co-owner you excluded has several remedies that hit your bottom line.

First, they can serve a notice of ouster under California Civil Code Section 843, which formally documents the exclusion and puts you on notice that damages are accruing.

Second, they can seek damages for ouster in court, calculated based on the value of the lost possession.

Third, the leading authority is Hunter v. Schultz establishes that a co-owner in sole possession of jointly owned property can be charged with the rental value of the property during the period of exclusion. The co-owner in possession may owe the co-owner out of possession their share of the fair market rental value of the property for every month they were kept out.

Finally, all of this rolls into the accounting at the end of any partition action. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.140, “The court may, in all cases, order allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustment among the parties according to the principles of equity.” The judge uses that section to charge the ousting co-owner and credit the excluded co-owner before any sale proceeds are split.

A qualified partition attorney quantifies every dollar of that exposure when representing the excluded co-owner, and counsels the ousting co-owner on how to unwind the situation before the damages run higher.

A California Partition Action is the Right Legal Path, Not Self-Help

If your co-ownership has reached the point where you want your co-owner out of the property, the right move is a partition action, not a lock change.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.210, any co-owner with a qualifying interest can file. And under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.710(b), partition “shall be as of right unless barred by a valid waiver.” Filing the action does what changing the locks cannot:

• Triggers a lis pendens that clouds title and protects your interest legally
• Forces a court-supervised resolution through either a buyout or a partition by sale
• Captures every contribution you have made through the accounting under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.140
• Avoids the self-help exposure that comes with locking out a co-owner

Self-help also carries real-world risks beyond ouster damages. A co-owner who finds themselves locked out can call law enforcement, rekey the property to obtain access, or seek an emergency court order requiring you to restore access. None of that helps your position in court.

Settle the Co-Ownership Dispute the Right Way with a California Partition Action

Locking your co-owner out feels like control, but it costs more than it solves. California gives you a court-supervised way to end the co-ownership, recover what you are owed, and walk away clean without resorting to self-help.

Talkov Law can help. With twelve full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 600 partition actions, our team handles every step of the process. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.

The post Can I Change the Locks of the Property Without Co-Owner Permission? appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.

A co-owner can technically rent a jointly owned property on an Airbnb or another short-term rental platform without the other co-owner’s permission. However, in a partition action, the court can force the renting co-owner to account for the income, pay for any exclusive use, and ultimately end the co-ownership.

California treats co-owners as having an equal right to possession, but pairs that right with a duty to account for income generated from the property. When one co-owner monetizes the property through short-term rentals and refuses to share the proceeds, the other co-owner has clear statutory remedies.

A Co-Owner Can Rent a Property on Airbnb, but Must Account for the Income in a California Partition Action

Under California co-ownership law, each tenant in common has an equal right to possess the property, regardless of ownership percentage. For example, this means you still have possession rights even if you have only 33% ownership rights in a California property

The catch is the accounting duty. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.140 states:

The court may, in all cases, order allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustment among the parties according to the principles of equity.

California Code of Civil Procedure 872.140

In practice, the renting co-owner must account for the gross rental income from each booking, less legitimate operating expenses such as cleaning fees, platform fees, and a proportionate share of property taxes and insurance.

The net amount is then split according to ownership percentage. The renting co-owner cannot keep all of it, even if they did the work to manage the rentals. This is captured in the broader doctrine of partition offsets and accounting, which a qualified partition attorney quantifies at the end of the case.

Unauthorized Airbnb Rentals Can Trigger an Ouster Claim in a California Partition Action

Listing a jointly owned property on Airbnb often goes beyond simply renting it out. When paying guests occupy the property to the exclusion of the non-renting co-owner, the law calls that ouster.

Ouster is the legal term for excluding a co-owner from possession. Once a co-owner is ousted, they are entitled to damages for ouster in addition to a share of any income generated during the exclusion.

The leading authority is Hunter v. Schultz, which establishes that a co-owner in sole possession of jointly owned property can be charged with the rental value of the property. When a co-owner is using the property to run an Airbnb operation, the rental value calculation captures the income they are generating from each guest stay.

To formalize the claim, the excluded co-owner can serve a notice of ouster under California Civil Code Section 843, which puts the renting co-owner on legal notice of the exclusion.

Practical evidence in an Airbnb dispute includes platform listing screenshots, calendar bookings, payout records, and guest reviews, much of which is accessible to the platform host and increasingly easy to obtain by subpoena once a partition action is filed.

A California Partition Action Forces a Resolution When a Co-Owner Won’t Stop Airbnb Rentals

When the renting co-owner refuses to share income or stop the Airbnb operation, a partition action is the cleanest path to resolution.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.210, any co-owner with a qualifying interest can file. And under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.710(b), partition “shall be as of right unless barred by a valid waiver.” Filing the action does three things at once:

• Triggers a lis pendens that clouds title and limits the renting co-owner’s flexibility
• Sets up the accounting under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.140 so every dollar of Airbnb income is on the table
• Moves the case toward either a buyout or a partition by sale that ends the dispute permanently

This is the leverage you do not have through ordinary negotiation. The renting co-owner who has been running an Airbnb without will need to has to account for every dollar collected and claimed expenses. Critically, a subpoena to Airbnb often simplifies this process through the production of a spreadsheet explaining each rental, payment, and expense.

End Your Co-Owner’s Airbnb Rentals Without Your Consent with a California Partition Action

If your co-owner is running an Airbnb on jointly owned property without your consent, you are not stuck. California gives you accounting rights, ouster damages, and a statutory path to end the co-ownership through a partition action.

Talkov Law can help. With twelve full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 600 partition actions, our team handles every step of the process. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.

The post Can a Co-Owner Airbnb or Short-Term Rent a Property Without Permission? appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.

Yes, you can force the sale of a multi-million dollar property in California, and a partition action is the legal tool that makes it happen. A high price tag does not give any co-owner special power to block a sale.

The law treats a luxury estate the same as an average home. If you co-own a high-value property and the other co-owners refuse to sell, you do not need their agreement to move forward.

This post explains why your right holds at any value, why these cases usually end in a sale, and how your share is protected.

Your Right to Force a Sale Holds at Any Value in a California Partition Action

The right to partition is absolute, and it does not shrink because the property is expensive. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.710(b), “partition as to concurrent interests in the property shall be as of right unless barred by a valid waiver.”

This absolute right to partition means a co-owner of a luxury or high-value home has the same power to force the sale of jointly owned property as the co-owner of any other property.

Critically, owning a minority share changes nothing. Even a co-owner with a small percentage can force the sale of a property worth millions.

Why a High-Value Home Usually Ends in a Partition by Sale

A court can either divide a property physically or order a partition by sale. For most multi-million dollar homes, a sale is the only realistic outcome.

The reason is practical. A single luxury residence cannot be cut into pieces, so partition in kind almost never works for a high-value home.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.820, the court orders a sale when it “determines that, under the circumstances, sale and division of the proceeds would be more equitable than division of the property.” The value of a high-end property is in the whole estate, not in fractional shares, which is exactly why a sale is the equitable result.

Protecting Your Share in a High-Value Partition Action

Forcing a sale is not the only option, and your financial interest is protected throughout the case.

A co-owner who wants to keep the property has paths to do so:

• A partition by appraisal sets a neutral, court-supervised value for the property
• A co-owner can exercise a right of first refusal and complete a buyout at that appraised value

Your contributions are also accounted for. Partition offsets reimburse a co-owner who paid more than their share of the mortgage, property taxes, or improvements before the rest is split.

After a sale, the proceeds are divided according to each co-owner’s interest, so even a multi-million dollar result is allocated fairly.

Will a Luxury Home Sell for Fair Market Value in a Partition Action?

Owners of high end properties in California should be rightfully concerned that a partition will yield the full market value in a partition action.

Luckily, the law protects property owners by:

• Ensuring that the property is listed at an appraised value
• Allowing co-owners to object to any sale they believe to be below fair market value
• Appointing experienced partition referees and brokers to position the property and keep all co-owners informed about marketing to maximize the return
• Requiring that the property be listed on the open market, including Zillow, Redfin, Trulia, and elsewhere.

It is critical for owners of luxury residential properties in a partition to choose experienced partition counsel to guide them through the process.

Unlock Your Equity in a Multi-Million Dollar California Partition Action

A high-value property does not change your rights. You can force the sale, the court will usually order one, and the law makes sure your share and your contributions are protected.

Talkov Law can help. With twelve full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 600 partition actions, our team handles every step of high-value and luxury cases. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.

The post Can You Force the Sale of Luxury Properties in California? appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.

When a co-owner refuses to pay their share of homeowner’s insurance premiums, a partition action gives the paying co-owner the legal power to end the co-ownership and recover what they’ve been forced to overpay.

Co-owners, most commonly tenants in common, share responsibility for property expenses proportionate to their ownership interest. Homeowner’s insurance is not optional: lenders require it when there’s a mortgage, and without it, a fire, flood, or liability event could wipe out both co-owners financially.

A partition action solves both problems at once. It ends the co-ownership through a court-supervised process and allows the paying co-owner to recover the excess insurance costs they’ve had to cover alone.

Co-Owner Insurance Obligations in a California Partition Action

Co-owners share the financial responsibilities that come with jointly owning property, property taxes, mortgage payments, and homeowner’s insurance. When one co-owner refuses to pay their share of insurance premiums, the consequences fall on whoever remains responsible:

• The paying co-owner must cover the full premium or risk the policy lapsing
• A lapsed policy leaves the property unprotected against wildfires, water damage, theft, and liability claims
• A mortgage lender may force-place insurance at a far higher cost

Recovering Unpaid Insurance Costs Through California Partition Action Offsets

A co-owner who has overpaid insurance premiums can seek reimbursement through partition offsets, financial credits applied against the non-paying co-owner’s share of sale proceeds.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.140 authorizes the court to “order allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustment among the parties according to the principles of equity.” Wallace v. Daley (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1035 confirms that co-owners who have borne disproportionate property expenses are entitled to seek credit through the partition accounting.

To recover those offsets, the paying co-owner should document every payment made, bank records, premium statements, and invoices. A partition referee reviews the accounting and recommends credits, which the court applies before the final proceeds are divided.

Filing a California Partition Action When a Co-Owner Refuses to Pay Insurance

When insurance disputes persist and the co-ownership has broken down, a partition action is the most direct legal solution, allowing the court to force the sale of jointly owned property and divide the proceeds with no cooperation from the other side required.

California law makes the right to partition absolute. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.710(b), “partition as to concurrent interests in the property shall be as of right unless barred by a valid waiver.” Courts typically order partition by sale, as Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.820(b) directs a sale when “sale and division of the proceeds would be more equitable than division of the property.”

After the sale, partition offsets are applied before proceeds are divided, and many co-owners agree to a voluntary sale or buyout once a partition attorney files the action.

Partition Action Is the Solution When Co-Owners Cannot Agree on Insurance

A co-owner refusing to pay insurance signals that the co-ownership relationship has broken down entirely. A partition action ends it on court-supervised terms, with a built-in accounting process to ensure the paying co-owner is compensated.

Talkov Law can help. With twelve full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 600 partition actions throughout California, our team handles every step of the process, from filing to the referee’s accounting to the final distribution of sale proceeds. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.

The post My Co-Owner is Not Paying the Insurance appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.

When a co-owner goes missing, a partition action is the most effective way to force the sale of the shared property. California’s partition statutes provide a clear process for serving a missing co-owner and moving the case forward.

This comes up more than people expect: in inherited property disputes where a sibling disappears, in tenancy in common situations where an investment partner walks away, or when a co-owner abandons the property. A missing co-owner cannot hold a property hostage indefinitely.

A Co-Owner’s Disappearance Does Not Block a California Partition Action

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.210, any co-owner of real property may file a partition action. No cooperation or consent from the other co-owners is required.

The absolute right to partition reinforces this. Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.710(b) states that “partition as to concurrent interests in the property shall be as of right unless barred by a valid waiver.” Going missing is not a waiver. The court will not deny partition just because one party cannot be located.

This is the same principle that applies when a co-owner is in prison. The partition still proceeds. A missing co-owner is a procedural hurdle, not a legal barrier.

How Service by Publication Works in a California Partition Action

When a co-owner cannot be found, California’s partition statutes authorize service by publication. Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.310(b) provides that unknown or missing defendants “shall be [served] by publication pursuant to Section 415.50 and the provisions of this article.”

To obtain a court order for publication, the plaintiff must submit an affidavit showing the co-owner cannot be located through reasonable diligence, documented attempts at personal service, public records searches, and similar efforts.

Once ordered, three conditions apply under Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.320:

• Post the summons and complaint on the property within 10 days.
• Record a lis pendens if not already done.
• The publication must describe the property, including its street address.

This framework applies equally under the Partition of Real Property Act for tenancy in common. A defective affidavit will get the order denied, which is why working with an experienced partition attorney from the start matters.

Obtaining a Default Partition Judgment After Serving a Missing Co-Owner

If the missing co-owner is served and fails to respond, the plaintiff can seek a default partition judgment. Default means the co-owner has given up the right to contest the partition.

The case then moves forward. A partition referee can be appointed to manage the sale, and the court oversees the distribution of proceeds. The missing co-owner’s share is preserved and they do not lose their equity, but they lose any say in how the case proceeds.

Move Forward Even If a Co-Owner Cannot Be Reached 

A missing co-owner does not stop a partition action. Talkov Law can help. With twelve full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 600 partition actions throughout California, our team handles everything from the publication affidavit to the final sale. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.

The post Can You File a Partition Action if the Co-Owner Cannot Be Reached? appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.

When one co-owner wants to live in a property and the other does not, a partition action is the ultimate legal solution to resolve disputes over possession, expenses, and fairness. In California, uncooperative co-owners generally have equal rights to occupy the entire property, but that doesn’t mean one can live there without consequences.

Equal Right to Possession in a California Partition Action

Under California law, each co-owner has an equal right to possess the entire property, regardless of their ownership percentage, which gives them the right to commence a partition action under (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 872.210). This means one co-owner can move in, even if the other disagrees.

However, this right is not absolute when it comes to financial fairness. A co-owner who exclusively occupies the property may be required to compensate the other co-owners.

Occupying Co-Owner May Owe Rent (Ouster and Accounting)

If one co-owner lives in the property and excludes the others, this can rise to the level of “ouster.” Even without formal ouster, courts following the precedent set in Hunter v. Schultz may still require the occupying co-owner to account for the fair rental value of the property.

California courts have recognized that a co-owner in sole possession can owe compensation to the non-occupying co-owner, particularly when:

• The occupying co-owner denies access to the other(s)
• There is a demand for rent or shared use
• The occupying co-owner benefits from exclusive use

This often becomes part of a partition action accounting, where the court adjusts financial equities between the parties.

Disputes Over Expenses and Contributions in a Partition Action

Living in the property also creates disputes over mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance.

An occupying co-owner may argue they are covering expenses, while the non-occupying co-owner may argue they are not receiving any benefit. In a partition action, the court can:

• Credit one party for paying more than their share of expenses
• Offset those credits against rental value owed
• Ensure a fair distribution of proceeds

Partition is the Solution When Co-Owners Cannot Agree

If one co-owner wants to live in the property and the other does not, the situation rarely resolves on its own. These disputes often escalate, especially when communication breaks down.

A partition action allows the court to:

• Force the sale of the property partition by sale.
• Divide proceeds fairly between co-owners
• Resolve disputes over occupancy, rent, and expenses in a single case

In many cases, a partition action is the most efficient way to end the conflict and allow each party to move forward.

Talkov Law can help. With twelve full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 600 partition actions, our team handles every step of the process. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.

The post What Happens if One Co-owner Wants to Live in the Property? appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.

A default partition judgment allows the court to order the sale of the property without the absent co-owner’s involvement. When a co-owner files a partition action and the other party refuses to respond, the case moves forward.

Co-owners have an absolute right to partition under California law. Whether the other party engages or not, the court has full authority to proceed and a defaulting co-owner cannot use their silence to block or delay the outcome.

What Is a Default Judgment in a California Partition Action?

A default judgment occurs when a defendant is properly served, but fails to respond within the time allowed by law, which is usually 30 days. The filing co-owner applies for entry by default, ending the other party’s ability to participate in the case.

Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 872.710(b), partition “shall be as of right unless barred by a valid waiver.” The court decides how to carry out the partition, not whether to allow it.

The defaulting co-owner keeps their property share but loses the ability to:

• Raise defenses or contest ownership percentages
• Challenge the property’s appraised value
• Negotiate the manner of partition
• Assert credits for mortgage payments, repairs, or taxes paid

How the Default Process Works in a California Partition Action

Service of the partition complaint starts the clock. When a co-owner cannot be located, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 872.310(b) authorizes service by publication, which applies to:

• Co-owners with unknown addresses
• Co-owners with a known address, but are evading service

Sometimes, this involves co-owners who are incarcerated and co-owners whose mental illness prevents engagement.

Once served, the defendant has 30 days to file an answer under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 872.410 to contest the case. Without one, the plaintiff requests entry of default and moves for a default judgment.

What a Default Judgment Means for Both Co-Owners in a California Partition Action

A default does not give the filing co-owner everything, even if the co-owner abandons the property. The court still confirms each party’s ownership share before granting relief. 

The court enters an interlocutory judgment of partition, appointing a partition referee to manage the partition by sale and distribute proceeds. If the absent co-owner refuses to sign the deed at closing, the referee signs on the court’s authority instead. 

Any co-owner served with a partition complaint should contact a partition attorney before the 30-day deadline.

Don’t Let an Unresponsive Co-Owner Delay Your Partition Action

Talkov Law can help. Unlike a letter warning of partition, a partition action can end the co-ownership if the recipient throws it in the trash. With twelve full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 600 partition actions throughout California, our team handles every step. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.

The post What is a Default Judgment in a Partition Action? appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.

Yes. In California, you can file a partition action to force the sale of jointly owned investment property, even if the other co-owner does not agree.

When co-owners of an investment property disagree on whether to sell, refinance, or manage the property, the situation can quickly become frustrating and financially draining. 

Fortunately, California law provides a clear solution through a partition action, which allows you to exit the investment and recover your share.

Partitioning an Investment Property in California

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 872.210, any co-owner of real property has the absolute right to file a partition action. This applies equally to investment properties, including rental homes, multi-family units, and commercial real estate.

In most cases, the court will order a partition by sale, meaning:

• The property is sold
• The proceeds are divided among the co-owners
• Adjustments are made based on each party’s financial contributions

This is especially common with investment properties, where physical division is impractical and selling the property is the most efficient outcome.

Partition Disputes Between Investment Property Co-Owners

Investment properties often involve ongoing financial obligations and expectations of profit, which can lead to disputes such as:

• One co-owner wants to sell, while the other wants to hold
• Disagreements over rental income or reinvestment
• Unequal contributions to mortgage, repairs, or improvements
• One co-owner mismanaging the property

These disputes rarely resolve on their own. A partition action allows the court to step in, force a resolution, and ensure each co-owner receives their fair share.

Recovering Contributions to Investment Property in a Partition Action

One of the key advantages of a partition action is the ability to account for unequal financial contributions.

Courts may consider:

• Mortgage payments
• Property taxes
• Insurance
• Repairs and improvements
• Rental income collected

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 874.140, the court can allocate costs and credits among the co-owners based on what is equitable. This means a co-owner who paid more than their share may recover those contributions from the sale proceeds.

Why Partition Is Often the Best Option for Investment Properties

Unlike a primary residence, an investment property is typically held for financial gain. When co-owners are no longer aligned, continuing to co-own the property can lead to lost income, mounting expenses, and ongoing conflict.

A partition action provides a clean exit by:

• Forcing a sale of the property
• Ending the co-ownership relationship
• Ensuring a fair distribution of proceeds

For many co-owners, it is the most effective way to protect their investment and move forward.

Partition Actions for Investment Properties with Talkov Law

If you co-own an investment property and your partner refuses to cooperate, you do not have to remain stuck in a bad investment. 

Talkov Law has twelve full-time partition attorneys who have handled 600 partition actions throughout California, helping clients force sales, recover contributions, and resolve co-ownership disputes efficiently. 

Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) or contact us online to speak with an experienced California partition attorney today.

The post Can I Partition an Investment Property? appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.

Los Angeles’ controversial “mansion tax,” officially known as Measure ULA, has created substantial confusion for co-owners, buyers of a fractional interest, investors, and parties involved in partition actions. One recurring question is whether the tax applies when only a fractional interest in real property is transferred rather than the entire property.

The answer is: generally, Measure ULA applies based on the value of the interest conveyed—not necessarily the value of the entire property. Thus, it appears that purchasing only a fractional interest in real estate in the City of Los Angeles where that fraction is under the limits does not trigger the mansion tax.

What Is Measure ULA?

Measure ULA imposed an additional real property transfer tax in the City of Los Angeles effective April 1, 2023. Under the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 21.9.2(b):

“[S]tarting on April 1, 2023, there is hereby imposed a tax known as the “Homelessness and Housing Solutions Tax” on each deed, instrument or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within the City of Los Angeles shall be granted, assigned, transferred or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons, by the person or their direction, when the consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (including the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale) exceeds:

   (1)   $5,000,000 but is less than $10,000,000, a tax at the rate of 4% of the consideration or value; or

   (2)   $10,000,000 or greater, a tax at the rate of 5.5% of the consideration or value.”^[1]Los Angeles Municipal Code § 21.9.2.

These thresholds are adjusted annually. The tax currently applies as follows:

• 4% tax on transfers exceeding approximately $5.3 million
• 5.5% tax on transfers exceeding approximately $10.6 million

The thresholds will increase again in June 2026 to 4% tax on transfers exceeding $5.4 million and 5.5% tax on transfers exceeding $10.9 million.

Unlike ordinary documentary transfer taxes, Measure ULA dramatically increases closing costs on qualifying transactions.

Does the “Mansion Tax” Apply to Fractional Interests?

The mansion tax appear to apply only if the value of the transferred fractional interest exceeds the applicable threshold.

The Real Property Transfer Tax and Measure ULA FAQ explains that Measure ULA applies to the “consideration or value of the real property interest conveyed.” This wording is significant because it focuses on the specific interest being transferred rather than automatically looking to the value of the entire property and is consistent with the text of LAMC § 21.9.2, which likewise focuses on the value of the “interest or property conveyed.”

For example:

• A property is worth $12 million (including the value of any lien or encumbrance)
• One co-owner sells a 25% tenant-in-common interest
• The buyer pays $3 million for that interest

In this scenario, the transferred interest is valued at $3 million, which is below the current Measure ULA threshold. Accordingly, Measure ULA would generally not apply, even though the entire property is worth substantially more than the threshold.

It’s also important to note that Measure ULA calculations can differ from ordinary Base Tax calculations as the Base Tax is “calculated based on net value of the property conveyed (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale)” whereas the ULA tax is “calculated based on gross value (including the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale)”.^[2]City of Los Angeles Finance Department – Measure ULA FAQ

Accordingly, mortgage allocations and debt assumptions can materially affect ULA analysis in co-owner buyouts and settlement transactions.

Why This Matters in Partition Actions

Fractional-interest transfers arise frequently in partition matters. Common scenarios include:

• One co-owner buying out another co-owner’s interest
• Transfers between family members
• Settlement agreements resolving co-ownership disputes
• Transfers into or out of LLCs or partnerships
• Pre-sale restructuring before listing the property

The transfer-tax consequences can differ dramatically depending on the structure of the transaction.

For example, if one co-owner purchases another co-owner’s 50% interest in a property worth $8 million, the conveyed interest may only be valued at approximately $4 million. That transfer may avoid Measure ULA entirely even though a later sale of the whole property could trigger the tax.

Substance Over Form Concerns

Parties should be careful not to assume that splitting transactions automatically avoids Measure ULA. The City of Los Angeles has not issued comprehensive regulations addressing every type of fractional-interest transaction. As a result, parties should expect taxing authorities to evaluate transactions based on their practical economic substance rather than solely their formal structure.

The City may challenge transactions that appear artificially structured to evade transfer taxes. For example:

• Multiple coordinated transfers
• Staged transactions
• Transfers through entities
• Straw-party arrangements

Courts and taxing authorities frequently apply a “substance over form” analysis when determining tax liability.

Accordingly, sophisticated transactions involving high-value Los Angeles real estate should be reviewed carefully by qualified counsel and tax professionals.

LLC and Partnership Transfers

Some investors attempt to structure transactions through LLCs or partnerships rather than direct deed transfers.

While certain entity-interest transfers may avoid transfer taxes under specific circumstances, the rules are highly technical and involve overlapping issues concerning:

• Documentary transfer tax
• Measure ULA
• Property tax reassessment
• Change in ownership rules
• Continuing partnership rules

Small details in drafting or timing can substantially affect tax consequences.

Certain exemptions applicable to documentary transfer taxes may also affect Measure ULA analysis, as some transactions exempt from the City’s ordinary real property transfer tax may likewise qualify for exemption from Measure ULA: “The ULA Tax will be not be applicable on documents that convey real property within the City of Los Angeles if the transferee is described under newly added sections 21.9.14 and 21.9.15 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.”^[3]Los Angeles Finance Department – Measure ULA Frequently Asked Questions

Partition Sales and Measure ULA

In partition actions, Measure ULA may apply differently depending on the nature of the transfer.

Court-Ordered Sale of Entire Property

If the entire property is sold through a partition referee sale and the sales price exceeds the applicable threshold, Measure ULA will generally apply.

Buyout Between Co-Owners

If one co-owner buys out another co-owner’s fractional interest, the tax analysis usually focuses on the value of the interest conveyed rather than the value of the entire property.

Settlement Transfers

Settlement agreements involving deeds between co-owners can create unique transfer-tax issues depending on the consideration exchanged and the structure of the transaction.

Conclusion

Measure ULA can significantly affect the economics of resolving co-ownership disputes involving Los Angeles real estate. Fortunately, the tax generally applies to the value of the interest conveyed rather than automatically applying based on the value of the entire property.

That distinction may significantly affect how co-owner buyouts, partition settlements, and related transactions are structured. However, poorly structured transactions can trigger unintended tax consequences or invite scrutiny from taxing authorities.

Because Measure ULA remains relatively new, many transactional structures have not yet been extensively litigated or interpreted by courts. Future administrative guidance or judicial decisions could alter how the tax applies to complex co-ownership and entity-transfer transactions.

If you are involved in a co-ownership dispute, buyout, or partition action involving Los Angeles real estate, the experienced partition attorneys at Talkov Law Partition Attorneys can help evaluate the potential impact of Measure ULA and develop a strategy to protect your financial interests.

Talkov Law has handled over 600 partition actions throughout California and has a team of twelve full-time partition attorneys dedicated exclusively to partition law. To discuss your case, call Talkov Law at (877) PARTITION (727-8484) or contact us online for a consultation.

The post The Los Angeles Mansion Tax Fractional Interest Loophole appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.

A partition of real property in California is a legal process that allows co-owners to force the sale when they cannot agree. Disagreements over whether to sell, how to use the property, or how to split expenses can quickly turn into serious conflicts. When co-owners reach a deadlock, a partition action is the ultimate legal solution to end the dispute and get your money out of the property.

California law treats the right to partition as absolute, meaning co-owners do not need the other party’s permission or agreement to move forward. If the goal is to sell the property and divide the proceeds, partition provides a court-supervised solution designed to end the dispute fairly.

What Does Partition of Real Property Mean?

A partition of real property is a legal process that allows one or more co-owners of real estate to force a division of the property. In California, any co-owner of property generally has the right to file a partition action to end co-ownership, even if the other owners do not agree.

Under California law, partition as to concurrent owners is a matter of right (Code of Civil Procedure § 872.710(b)). This means that if you own property with someone else, you typically cannot be forced to remain in that ownership arrangement indefinitely, unless you have entered into a valid agreement waiving that right.

Partition actions are commonly used when:

• One co-owner wants to sell, but the other refuses
• Co-owners disagree on how to manage or use the property
• There are disputes over financial contributions or expenses
• A relationship between co-owners has broken down

Types of Partition in California

There are generally three types of partition recognized under California law:

Partition by Sale

Partition by sale is the most common and practical form of partition. In these cases, the court orders the property to be sold and the proceeds divided among the co-owners according to their ownership interests.

In reality, most properties, especially single-family homes, cannot be physically divided without reducing their value or creating logistical issues. As a result, partition by sale is often the most efficient and equitable solution.

Partition by sale is typically used when:

• Co-owners cannot agree on how to use or manage the property
• The property cannot be physically divided (such as a single-family home)
• Division would significantly reduce the property’s value

California courts often favor partition by sale when it is “more equitable” than physically dividing the property (Code of Civil Procedure § 872.820).

Partition by Appraisal

Partition by appraisal is a process where one co-owner buys out the others based on the appraised value of the property. This can avoid a public sale, but it typically requires agreement between the parties, which is extremely rare in connection with the need for a court.

Partition in Kind

Partition in kind involves physically dividing the property between co-owners. While this may seem ideal, it is rarely practical in most California cases.

It is typically limited to large or rural properties where division is feasible. For most residential properties, courts will deny partition in kind if it would be impractical or reduce the property’s value, making it far less common than partition by sale.

Who Can File a Partition Action and Should You Hire a Lawyer?

In California, any co-owner of real property can file a partition action, including:

• Joint tenants
• Tenants in common
• Co-owners who inherited property
• Unmarried couples who purchased property together

Even a minority co-owner can force a partition. Ownership percentage does not eliminate the right to seek division.

While it is possible to file a partition action without a lawyer, these cases often involve:

• Court procedures and litigation strategy
• Property valuation disputes
• Financial accounting for contributions and reimbursements
• Negotiations with uncooperative co-owners

In fact, delaying a partition action can reduce property value, increase costs, and make disputes more difficult to resolve over time.

Working with an experienced partition attorney helps ensure the process is handled correctly and your financial interests are protected.

Speak with a California Partition Attorney Today

If you co-own property and cannot agree on what to do next, a partition action is a proven legal solution that puts you back in control. Whether you are dealing with a disagreement over selling, financial disputes, or a breakdown in a relationship, you do not have to navigate this process alone.

Talkov Law is California’s first, largest, and most experienced partition law firm, with twelve full-time partition attorneys who have handled over 600 partition actions throughout the state. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) or contact us online to discuss your situation and take the first step toward resolving your co-ownership dispute.

The post What Is the Partition of Real Property? appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.