Heirs Won a Partition Sale — Then Lost It on Appeal Amundson v. Catello (2025)
California heirs cannot force the sale of inherited real estate while the estate is still in probate. In Amundson v. Catello, four siblings litigated a partition action for three years against their late sister's co-owner, won a judgment ordering the property sold — then lost the entire case on appeal because no probate court had yet confirmed that they owned anything at all. The Fourth District reversed and directed dismissal. Their legal theory was sound. Their timing was not.
Case at a Glance
- The property
- A parcel with a house and an accessory dwelling unit, held since 2005 by Leslie J. Knoles and Ruth Catello as joint tenants with right of survivorship
- The trigger
- In September 2020, Knoles recorded a quitclaim deed granting the property to herself — a move that, if valid, severed the joint tenancy and destroyed Catello's right of survivorship. Knoles died weeks later
- The dispute
- Catello sued to cancel the deed and quiet title, claiming she owned the entire property. Knoles's four siblings cross-complained to partition it by sale in their individual capacities
- The outcome
- The trial court ordered a partition by sale. The Court of Appeal reversed and directed dismissal: the siblings never had standing, because probate had not confirmed their ownership
What Happened: One Deed, One Death, and Three Years of Litigation That Went Nowhere
The facts of Amundson v. Catello are the facts of thousands of California co-ownership disputes. Two people own a house together. One dies. What happens next depends entirely on how the deed was written — and on whether anyone bothered to confirm who owns what before heading to court.
The 2005 Deed and What Joint Tenancy Actually Does
A deed recorded in 2005 gave Ruth Catello and Leslie J. Knoles co-ownership of the property in fee simple as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. That form of ownership does something specific and often misunderstood: each owner holds an equal, undivided share in the whole property, and when one joint tenant dies, that share passes automatically to the survivor. It never becomes part of the deceased owner's estate. No probate. No will. No heirs.
Under that structure, Catello would have owned the entire property outright the moment Knoles died. Knoles's siblings would have received nothing, because there would have been nothing in the estate to receive.
The 2020 Quitclaim Deed That Changed Everything
In September 2020, Knoles recorded a quitclaim deed she had granted to herself. California law permits a joint tenant to do this. Civil Code section 683.2 allows a joint tenant to unilaterally sever a joint tenancy by executing and recording a deed — without the other owner's knowledge or consent. The effect of a valid severance is that both owners keep their one-half interests, but they now hold as tenants in common, with no expectation of inheriting the other half on the co-owner's death.
That single recorded document converted Knoles's half of the property from something that would vanish into Catello's hands at death into something that could pass to Knoles's heirs. Knoles — allegedly unmarried and without children — died a few weeks later.
How a Winning Theory Produced a Dismissed Case
2005
The Ownership Structure Is Set
A recorded deed gives Knoles and Catello the property — land, house, and accessory dwelling unit — in fee simple as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Under this structure, the first to die leaves nothing behind for heirs to claim.
Sept. 2020
Knoles Severs the Joint Tenancy
Knoles records a quitclaim deed she granted to herself. If valid, it severs the joint tenancy and creates a tenancy in common with no right of survivorship, making her half of the property inheritable. Catello would later argue this deed was invalid.
Oct.–Nov. 2020
Knoles Dies; Probate Opens
Knoles dies weeks after recording the deed. In November 2020, her four surviving siblings open probate proceedings, listing the property as an estate asset and asserting they are her only intestate heirs.
Feb. 2021–Feb. 2022
Competing Petitions; an Administrator Is Appointed
Catello files a competing petition for letters of administration. A year passes. In February 2022, the probate court appoints an estate administrator — a personal representative with statutory authority to act for the estate. Ownership of Knoles's half remains undetermined.
Feb. 2022
Catello Files a Quiet Title Action — Without the Estate
About two weeks before the administrator is appointed, Catello sues two of the siblings to cancel the 2020 quitclaim deed and quiet title, claiming she owns the entire property. She never names the estate as a defendant, and never seeks leave to add the administrator once one is appointed.
May 2022
The Fatal Filing: Siblings Cross-Complain for Partition
All four siblings respond with a cross-claim to partition the property by sale, arguing the 2020 deed was valid and Knoles's interest will eventually belong to them. They file in their individual capacities — not through the administrator, who is not joined as a party. They acknowledge probate is still pending.
Jan. 2023
The Siblings Win an Interlocutory Judgment
The trial court enters an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale, identifying the record owners as Catello and Knoles, labeling the siblings "estate successors in interest/beneficiaries," and ordering proceeds applied to sale costs, liens, and the siblings' attorney's fees, with the residue split equally. Catello never raised standing below.
June 3, 2025
Reversed With Directions to Dismiss
The Fourth District holds the siblings lacked standing from the outset. The interlocutory judgment is reversed and the case is ordered dismissed. Each side bears its own costs on appeal. Three years of litigation ends with no partition, no sale, and no recovery of fees.
Who Can File a Partition Action in California?
Only a confirmed owner. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 872.210(a)(2), a partition action may be commenced and maintained by an owner of an "estate of inheritance" in real property that is owned by several persons concurrently or in successive estates. An "estate of inheritance" means a perpetual estate under Civil Code section 761 — a fee simple or a tenancy in common. California courts have long held that the one indispensable requirement for a partition award is a showing of clear title.
That requirement is the entire case. The siblings in Amundson believed they would eventually own half the property. They may well have been right. But belief is not title, and the Court of Appeal held that a contingent, unconfirmed expectation of ownership does not satisfy section 872.210. Standing requires a beneficial interest that is concrete and actual, not conjectural or hypothetical — and the burden of establishing it falls on the party seeking partition.
The Statutory Framework the Court Applied
Code Civ. Proc.
§ 872.210(a)(2)
Standing to partition. A partition action may be commenced and maintained only by an owner of an estate of inheritance in real property held concurrently or in successive estates. The words "commenced and maintained" matter: ownership must exist when the action is filed, not merely by the time judgment is entered.
Civil Code
§ 761
What an "estate of inheritance" is. A perpetual estate. California courts have identified a fee simple and a tenancy in common as qualifying estates. A contingent interest awaiting confirmation in probate is not one.
Civil Code
§ 683.2(a)(2), (c)(1)
Unilateral severance of joint tenancy. A joint tenant may sever a joint tenancy by executing and recording a deed, converting the ownership to a tenancy in common. This is the provision that transformed the entire dispute — and it can be exercised without the co-owner's knowledge.
Probate Code
§§ 7000, 7001
Title passes at death — subject to administration. Section 7000 provides that title passes on death to devisees under the will or, absent a devise, to intestate heirs. But it is expressly subject to section 7001, which concerns estate administration. The siblings leaned on section 7000. The court held section 7001 is what controls until probate concludes.
Probate Code
§ 11605
When title is actually confirmed. The final order of distribution binds and is conclusive as to the rights of all interested persons. That order — not the date of death, not the filing of a probate petition — is the moment an heir's title is confirmed, with the acquisition date relating back to death.
Probate Code
§ 9823
Who may partition estate property. The personal representative is expressly authorized to bring a partition action in superior court. The court treated this as decisive: the Legislature vested the partition right in the administrator, not in the possible heirs, so there is no gap that requires recognizing heir standing.
Code Civ. Proc.
§ 367
Real party in interest. Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest except as otherwise provided by statute. Probate Code section 9823 is that exception — and it names the personal representative, not the heirs.
Code Civ. Proc.
§§ 872.720(a), 904.1(a)(9)
The interlocutory judgment. An interlocutory partition judgment determines the parties' interests and orders partition — and it is immediately appealable. That appealability is why Catello could take the standing issue up before any sale occurred.
Why the Siblings Lost: Four Arguments the Court Rejected
The siblings did not concede the point. They advanced four separate theories to save a judgment they had already won. Each failed, and the reasoning is instructive for any California co-owner weighing whether to file.
The Respondents' Theories — and the Court's Answers
"Probate Code section 7000 gave us title the moment our sister died."
Rejected
Section 7000 is expressly subject to section 7001, which governs estate administration. The court explained that if the probate court ultimately upholds the proffered will, Catello acquires Knoles's half with an acquisition date relating back to the date of death — and the siblings get nothing. Because it remained genuinely uncertain who would succeed to that interest, the siblings could not establish the ownership section 872.210 requires. As the rule has long been stated: although a decedent's real property passes to the heirs at law, their right to it is subject to administration and distribution, and until distribution they have no interest that will support a partition action.
"Catello conceded our ownership by naming us in her quiet title action."
Rejected
This argument misreads what a quiet title complaint does. Code of Civil Procedure section 761.020(c) required Catello to name the siblings, because they were persons she knew might hold claims adverse to hers. The court was direct about the logic: the entire purpose of her action was to defeat the siblings' adverse claims by showing they had no rights in the property — the exact opposite of conceding that they did. The court also noted that standing is not defined by the opposing party, and may be raised for the first time on appeal.
"Catello should be judicially estopped from raising standing now."
Rejected
Judicial estoppel requires totally inconsistent positions, success on the first position, and a first position not taken through ignorance, fraud, or mistake. The court found Catello had never taken inconsistent positions about the siblings' rights — and that even if she had, nothing in the record suggested she was deliberately gaming the system, a showing required to satisfy the doctrine's third element.
"The estate administrator stipulated that we could litigate for the estate."
Rejected
The court called this argument self-defeating: standing must exist from a case's outset, and the stipulation came after filing. Beyond that, the stipulation did not do what the siblings claimed. The administrator merely "defer[red]" to the siblings and "agree[d] to be bound" by the judgment. She did not appoint them designees or assign the partition claim — and the siblings cited no authority permitting a personal representative to deputize a perceived heir to prosecute an estate's partition claim.
"Heirs can convey or encumber their expected interests, so they can partition too."
Right premise, wrong question
The court accepted that an heir may convey or encumber an expected interest, subject to administration. But it drew a clean line: whether a potential heir can encumber a contingent interest as to a third party is an entirely distinct question from whether that contingent interest confers standing to partition a property in which another owner's interest — Catello's — is not subject to probate at all.
What the Court Held
Amundson v. Catello — The Holdings That Matter
Contingent heirs are not owners. An heir whose interest awaits confirmation in probate does not hold an "estate of inheritance" under Code of Civil Procedure section 872.210(a)(2) and cannot commence a partition action.
Uncertainty itself is disqualifying. Because it was unresolved whether the siblings or Catello would succeed to the decedent's interest, that uncertainty alone precluded the siblings from establishing the required ownership. They did not have to lose in probate to lose standing.
Only the personal representative may partition during administration. Probate Code section 9823 vests the right to bring a partition claim on the estate's behalf in the administrator, and the court found no authority extending that right to expectant heirs.
A stipulation cannot cure a standing defect. An administrator's agreement to defer to heirs and be bound by the judgment is not an assignment of the claim and does not manufacture standing that never existed.
Standing can surface for the first time on appeal. Catello never challenged the siblings' standing in the trial court and still prevailed. Where the relevant facts are undisputed, standing is a question of law reviewed de novo.
Disposition: reversed with directions to dismiss. Not remanded for further proceedings on the merits — dismissed. Each side bore its own costs on appeal, and the attorney's fee award built into the interlocutory judgment fell with it.
What Should Have Happened Instead
The siblings had legitimate paths available. The problem was choosing the fastest-looking one.
Four Routes That Would Have Preserved the Claim
Option One
Let the administrator file
Probate Code section 9823 authorizes the personal representative to bring a partition action for estate property. Had the administrator filed the claim in her own capacity as representative of the estate, the standing problem would not have existed.
Option Two
Resolve the will contest first
The competing petitions were the real dispute. Whoever prevailed on the validity of the will and the 2020 quitclaim deed would own the decedent's half. Partition is a remedy for confirmed co-owners, not a shortcut through a title fight.
Option Three
Wait for the order of distribution
Once a final order of distribution issues, an heir's title is confirmed and the acquisition date relates back to the date of death. At that point the heir is an owner and can file. The delay is real, but so is the judgment that survives.
Option Four
Negotiate or mediate a buyout
Co-ownership deadlocks are frequently resolved by one side purchasing the other's interest. Real estate mediation can produce a binding resolution without a standing fight, a forced sale, or five years of parallel litigation.
What Amundson v. Catello Means for Glendale and Los Angeles County Property Owners
Amundson was decided in San Diego, but it applies in Glendale. Published California Court of Appeal decisions are binding on every superior court in the state, including Los Angeles County. Any co-owner, heir, or trustee contemplating a partition action on a property in Glendale, Burbank, Pasadena, or anywhere in Los Angeles County is operating under this rule.
The fact pattern is also extremely common in this region. Los Angeles County has an enormous stock of multigenerational family homes held informally — a parent dies without a trust, the house passes by intestacy, one adult child has been living in it for years, and the others want to be paid. Glendale and the surrounding communities add a specific wrinkle: properties with accessory dwelling units, where the ADU rental income becomes the actual subject of the dispute long before anyone discusses selling.
Applying Amundson in Los Angeles County
Binding authority in LA County
Amundson is a published opinion, which makes it binding on Los Angeles County Superior Court. A Glendale heir who files a partition action while probate is pending faces the same standing defect, and it can be raised at any point — including on appeal after judgment.
Two courts, no coordination
In Los Angeles County, probate matters and civil partition actions proceed through separate divisions. Neither court automatically polices the other's standing questions. As Amundson demonstrates, a partition case can run for three years to final judgment while the ownership question sits unresolved in probate.
The inherited family home
The most common Glendale and Los Angeles version of this dispute: a parent dies without a trust, several adult children inherit by intestacy, and one occupies the property. Until a final order of distribution issues, none of the children can file for partition. The estate's personal representative can.
Deeds signed decades ago
Amundson turned on a 2005 deed and a 2020 recording. Reviewing how a property is actually vested — joint tenancy, tenancy in common, community property with right of survivorship, or title held by a trust or entity — is the first step in any co-ownership dispute. A title report frequently changes the strategy entirely.
The unilateral severance risk
Civil Code section 683.2 lets one joint tenant sever the joint tenancy by recording a deed, without notifying the other owner. Co-owners who assumed survivorship would resolve everything sometimes discover after a death that it was quietly eliminated years earlier.
The Partition of Real Property Act
Separately from Amundson, California's Partition of Real Property Act (Code Civ. Proc. § 874.311 et seq.), effective January 1, 2023, added court-ordered appraisal and buyout procedures for tenancy-in-common property where no written agreement governs partition. It changes how a properly filed partition case proceeds — but it does nothing for a party who lacked standing to file at all.
DiJulio Law Group handles co-ownership and title disputes as part of its California real estate law practice, including matters that overlap with adverse possession and competing ownership claims, boundary disputes, easements and access rights, and nondisclosure claims arising from a sale. The firm's real estate practice center covers what buyers, sellers, owners, and heirs should prepare before a first consultation.
Why This Matters
Five Takeaways for Anyone Who Co-Owns or Expects to Inherit California Real Estate
Amundson v. Catello is not a story about an unusual property or an exotic legal theory. It is a story about sequence. The siblings were probably right about the deed, probably right about their inheritance, and definitively wrong about when they were entitled to go to court.
Confirm Title Before You File
Clear title is the one indispensable requirement for a partition award. Pull the deed, order a title report, and establish exactly how the property is vested before a complaint is drafted. Expecting to own something is not owning it.
Probate Is a Gate, Not a Formality
While an estate is in administration, the personal representative — not the heirs — holds the authority to bring a partition action. Heirs who file in their individual capacities are filing without standing, no matter how strong the underlying claim is.
A Quitclaim Deed Is a Real Legal Act
One joint tenant can sever a joint tenancy alone, by recording a deed, without telling anyone. Every co-ownership dispute should begin with a review of what has actually been recorded against the property — and when.
Winning Below Is Not Winning
The siblings obtained an interlocutory judgment ordering a sale and awarding their attorney's fees. It was reversed and dismissed. An interlocutory partition judgment is immediately appealable, and a threshold defect can undo everything built on top of it.
Speed Is Not Strategy
Filing early felt like leverage. It cost three years, a judgment, a fee award, and the case itself. In co-ownership disputes, getting the sequence right is usually worth more than getting to court first.
Frequently Asked Questions About California Partition Actions
Can heirs file a partition action while an estate is still in probate in California?
No. Under Amundson v. Catello (2025), heirs whose ownership interest has not been confirmed by a final order of distribution do not hold an "estate of inheritance" under Code of Civil Procedure section 872.210(a)(2) and lack standing to bring a partition action. During estate administration, Probate Code section 9823 authorizes the estate's personal representative to file a partition claim on the estate's behalf.
What is a partition action?
A partition action is a civil lawsuit that terminates co-ownership of real property. California recognizes three methods: physical division of the property, sale of the property and division of the proceeds, and partition by appraisal, in which one cotenant acquires the others' interests through a court-ordered and supervised appraisal. A partition does not transfer title — the parties already hold title, and the court is dividing what they already own.
Who has the right to force the sale of a co-owned property in California?
Any owner of an estate of inheritance in property held concurrently or in successive estates may commence a partition action, unless that owner has validly waived the right by written agreement. Ownership must be confirmed and clear. A co-owner generally cannot be compelled to remain in a co-ownership arrangement indefinitely, which is why partition is often described as an absolute right of a confirmed owner.
Does a quitclaim deed to yourself break a joint tenancy in California?
It can. Civil Code section 683.2 permits a joint tenant to sever a joint tenancy unilaterally by executing and recording a deed, including a deed granted to the joint tenant personally, and no consent from the other owner is required. A valid severance converts the ownership into a tenancy in common with no right of survivorship, so each owner's half becomes inheritable. Whether a particular deed accomplished a valid severance is itself frequently litigated — that was the core dispute in Amundson.
What is the difference between a partition action and a quiet title action?
A quiet title action determines who owns an interest in property and resolves competing or adverse claims. A partition action divides or sells property among owners whose interests are already established. The order matters: a party must have clear title before partition is available. In Amundson, both actions were pending simultaneously, and the partition claim failed precisely because the ownership question had not yet been answered.
What did the Partition of Real Property Act change?
Effective January 1, 2023, the Partition of Real Property Act (Code Civ. Proc. § 874.311 et seq.) applies to tenancy-in-common property where no written agreement among the cotenants governs partition. Where it applies, the court must determine the property's fair market value, typically through a court-ordered appraisal, notify the parties of that value, and offer cotenants who oppose a sale the opportunity to buy out those who want to sell before the case proceeds to a partition in kind or by sale. The framework was designed largely to protect owners of inherited property from forced undervalued sales.
Can a co-owner recover money they spent on the property?
Often, yes. California partition proceedings include an accounting in which the court can adjust the distribution of proceeds to reflect disproportionate contributions such as mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, necessary repairs, and value-adding improvements, as well as claims relating to one cotenant's exclusive use of the property. Contemporaneous records — statements, receipts, and rental income documentation — are what make those claims provable.
Do I need a lawyer for a partition action in Glendale or Los Angeles?
Partition is a technical statutory procedure with threshold requirements that are easy to miss, as Amundson demonstrates: a judgment obtained after three years of litigation was reversed and dismissed on a standing defect the appellant had never raised in the trial court. DiJulio Law Group advises co-owners, heirs, and investors on California real estate disputes throughout Glendale, Los Angeles, and Southern California. You can contact the firm or call 818-502-1700 to discuss a co-ownership matter.
How DiJulio Law Group Approaches Co-Ownership and Title Disputes
Co-ownership disputes rarely arrive as clean legal questions. They arrive as a sibling who will not leave the house, a business partner who stopped paying the mortgage, an ex-partner still on title years after the relationship ended, or a deed someone recorded quietly in 2019 that nobody discovered until a death made it matter. The legal remedy is usually clear. The sequence is what determines whether it works.
DiJulio Law Group has represented property owners in Glendale, Los Angeles, and throughout Southern California for more than 35 years in real estate, business, construction, and mediation matters. Founding partner R. David DiJulio has handled California real estate and property litigation across that period, including ownership, title, disclosure, and habitability disputes.
For a co-ownership matter, the first work is almost always diagnostic: confirming how title is actually vested, identifying what has been recorded and when, determining whether any estate or trust administration is pending, and establishing who has legal authority to bring a claim today rather than eventually. That analysis frequently reveals a faster or cheaper resolution than litigation — and when it does not, it produces a case that survives a standing challenge.
Facing a Co-Ownership, Partition, or Title Dispute?
DiJulio Law Group advises co-owners, heirs, and investors on California real estate disputes in Glendale, Los Angeles, and throughout Southern California.
This case study discusses a published California appellate decision for general informational purposes. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not describe a matter handled by DiJulio Law Group. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, the vesting of title, and the procedural posture of each case. Consult a licensed California attorney about your situation.
Primary Sources
- Amundson v. Catello, No. D082158 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. One, June 3, 2025), published opinion. Judicial Council of California, official opinion release. courts.ca.gov
- California Code of Civil Procedure § 872.210 (standing to commence and maintain a partition action). California Legislative Information, official statutory text. leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
- California Lawyers Association, Trusts and Estates Section, case summary of Amundson v. Catello (2025). calawyers.org
Authorities Cited in the Opinion
- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 367, 426.30, 761.020(c), 872.210(a)(2), 872.720(a), 904.1(a)(9), 874.311 et seq.
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 683.2(a)(2), 683.2(c)(1), 761, 954.
- Cal. Prob. Code §§ 58, 7000, 7001, 9650 et seq., 9823, 11605.
- Bank of Ukiah v. Rice (1904) 143 Cal. 265, 271.
- Gunn v. Gunn (1929) 102 Cal.App. 606, 607.
- Aronson v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Assn. (1941) 42 Cal.App.2d 710, 717–718.
- Reed v. Hayward (1943) 23 Cal.2d 336, 342.
- Alamo School Dist. v. Jones (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 180, 184.
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.
- American Medical International, Inc. v. Feller (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 1008, 1013.
- Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 438.
- Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181.
- Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1000.
- Arthur Andersen v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1500–1501.
- Estate of Bonanno (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 7, 17.
- Scott v. Thompson (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1510.
- Owens v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107, 121.
- Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 802, 810.
- 4 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Est. (4th ed. 2024) §§ 11:14, 11.15, 11:23, 11.28.
- 48 Cal.Jur.3d (2025) Right of Heirs and Personal Representatives, § 41.
0 Comments