Partition: Defendant Successfully Defending Against Sole Plaintiff’s Claim To 50% Property Ownership Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Under Partition Statute

No Common Benefit Was Secured.

            In Gentino v. Yaghoobia, Case No. B321102 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 12, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff was defensed by a single defendant in a case alleging that plaintiff had a 50% ownership interest in a Long Beach property, with one of the claims being for partition.  Defendant moved for fees under CCP § 874.010, but that fee request was denied.  On appeal, the reviewing court agreed:  the reason was simple, defendant obtained no “common benefit” between the parties, a requirement for an award of fees under the partition statute.

Scroll to Top