Cummings v. Dessel, 13 Cal. App. 5th 589

In 2009 Cummings, Dessel, and Seal purchased a dilapidated residence as co-owners with an agreement allocating 50% to Cummings and the other 50% split between Dessel and Seal; deed initially recorded as equal one‑third joint tenancy but later quitclaims by Cummings reflected tenants in common with the 50/25/25 split.
Dessel and Seal stopped contributing after extensive renovations; Cummings covered mortgage payments and taxes, later filing suit (2011) seeking quiet title and partition; Dessel/Seal filed cross‑claims asserting contract claims.
After multiple continuances and a bench trial in late 2014, the trial court entered an interlocutory judgment: Cummings 50%, Dessel and Seal 25% each, and ordered partition by a bidding procedure with a $125,000 minimum (based on Cummings’s expert appraisal) allowing co‑owners to buy out the others; if no bids, the property would be sold publicly.
Cummings submitted the $125,000 minimum bid; Dessel and Seal did not; trial court awarded Cummings sole title and later entered an amended judgment confirming sale and awarding attorney fees to Cummings.
On appeal defendants argued the court erred by ordering partition by appraisal without a written agreement (statutorily required), that the partition procedure did not meet partition‑sale notice requirements, and that denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could order partition by appraisal without a written agreement	Cummings characterized the court's procedure as a private sale, not appraisal, so no written agreement was required	Dessel/Seal argued partition by appraisal requires a written agreement filed with the court under §873.920	Court held the procedure operated as partition by appraisal but no written agreement existed, so ordering appraisal was legal error
Whether the court's procedure complied with partition‑by‑sale statutory notice requirements	Cummings contended the procedure was a private sale and sufficient	Dessel/Seal argued partition‑sale statutes require public posting/publication and broader notice to potential bidders, which was not done	Court held the procedure failed to satisfy partition‑sale notice requirements because it did not provide public notice or publication
Whether the errors required reversal (prejudice) and whether denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion	Cummings argued any statutory error was harmless and record inadequacy precluded review; also maintained denial of continuance was appropriate	Dessel/Seal argued the error prejudiced their ability to bid and that trial continuance denial was abusive given illness/family events	Court concluded the statutory error was harmless (did not affect outcome) and rejected defendants’ continuance claim; judgment affirmed

LEG Investments v. Boxler, 183 Cal.App.4th 484 (2010) (describes partition as remedy to sever unity of possession)
14859 Moorpark Homeowner's Ass'n v. VRT Corp., 63 Cal.App.4th 1396 (1998) (defines partition and statutory scheme)
Butte Creek Island Ranch v. Crim, 136 Cal.App.3d 360 (1982) (discusses preference for partition in kind and sale considerations)
Elbert, Ltd. v. Federated Income Properties, 120 Cal.App.2d 194 (1953) (partition as an equitable proceeding)
Richmond v. Dofflemyer, 105 Cal.App.3d 745 (1980) (presumption favoring partition in kind)
DP Pham LLC v. Cheadle, 246 Cal.App.4th 653 (2016) (legislative history and purpose of appraisal partition provisions)
Lucioni v. Bank of America, N.A., 3 Cal.App.5th 150 (2016) (statutory interpretation principles; expressio unius)