Motion to Appoint Appraiser to Determine Fair Market Value
Case No. 24CV442732 Motion to Appoint Appraiser to Determine Fair Market Value
I. BACKGROUND This case involves a Complaint filed on July 9, 2024, under the Partition of Real Property Act (“PRPA”) for partition of real property, an 80-acre of land located in Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California, 95037, APN: 742-26-002 (“Subject Property”). (Complaint and Motion at p. 2). The Subject Property is held by joint tenants, Plaintiff Rolan Estrada and Defendant Ron Estrada. (Complaint). Per the defendant, the plaintiff owns 25% interest and the defendant owns 75% interest in the Subject Property. (Id.; Motion at p.5; Declaration of Gregory Brown). Defendant asserts that there is no agreement in a record binding all the contents which govern the partition of the property. (Id.).
Defendant holds an unsatisfied money judgment against the plaintiff in the total amount of $113,462.98 as of October 16, 2025 (Motion, at p. 2). The judgment was levied against the Subject Property, which the defendant purchased for the preservation of title to the Property. (Id.). Defendant asserts that he is the sole contributor for all expenses and maintenance of the Subject Property, including, but not limited to taxes paid every year since 1987, repairs, and the maintenance of the road that runs through the property. (Id., at p. 3).
The cost of expenses as of October 16, 2026 is estimated at $215,818.95. (Id.). Based on the plaintiff’s quarter ownership of the property, the plaintiff should have paid his portion of expenses that would amount to $53,954.74. (Id.). Defendant asserts that the PRPA provides for offsets to allow the purchasing parties to pay only what is owed after offsets and is entitled to credit against the price in an amount equal to the purchaser’s share of the proceeds. (Id., at p. 2-3).
Before the Court, is Defendant Ron Estrada’s motion to appoint an independent appraiser to determine the fair market value under partition of real property and confirm offsets that was filed on October 22, 2025. The motion was accompanied by a proof of service on that same day indicating electronic service to plaintiff’s counsel. The defendant seeks the following orders: (1) an order appointing Bradley Carneghi of Carneghi-Nakasako & Associates as appraiser of the Subject Property. (Motion, at p. 6; Declaration of Brown; Exhibit 7); (2) an order confirming that if the defendant elects to buy all of the plaintiff’s 25% interests in the Subject Property, the defendant will be entitled to offsets for maintenance, taxes, and preservation of title through the money judgment and that he will be credited against any sum otherwise payable to the plaintiff. (Id., at p. 3); (3) an order that if the Subject Property is sold, the offset amounts shall be deducted from the plaintiff’s share of the sale proceeds and paid to the defendant. (Id.).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on July 8, 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).
The Court has carefully reviewed the following, moving papers, including Defendant’s notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities in support of a motion, Declaration of Greg Brown in support of the defendant’s motion and attached Exhibits 1-10, and proof of service (totaling 69 pages), as well as the pleadings.
II. LEGAL STANDARD The Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act former Code of Civil Procedure section 874.311 et seq., governs actions filed on or after January 1, 2022 for the partition of real property that is "heirs property" as defined in the Act. According to Civil Code of Procedure section 874.312, subdivision (e), “heirs property" means real property held in tenancy in common which satisfies all the following requirements as of the filing of a partition action:
(1) There is no agreement binding all the cotenants which governs the partition of the property. (2) One or more of the cotenants acquired title from a relative, whether living or deceased. (3) Any of the following applies: 20% or more of the interests are held by cotenants who are relatives; 20% or more of the interests are held by an individual who acquired title from a relative, whether living or deceased; or 20% or more of the cotenants are relatives.
Parties may request the “appoint[ment of] a disinterested real estate appraiser licensed in the State of California to determine the fair market value of the property assuming sole ownership of the fee simple estate.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 874.316(d)).
When partition is ordered, the court may apportion the costs of partition, including an appraisal fee, except that the court cannot apportion the costs of partition to any party that opposes the partition unless doing so is equitable and consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 874.316(d), within 10 days after the appraiser files his or her appraisal with the court, the court must send notice to each party with a known address, stating the following: (1) The appraised fair market value of the property. (2) That the appraisal is available at the court clerk's office. (3) That a party may file with the court an objection to the appraisal not later than 30 days after the notice is sent, stating the grounds for the objection. (Cal. Code Civ. P. § 874.316(d)).
Section 874.316(e)-(f) then states that: If an appraisal is filed with the court pursuant to subdivision (d), the court shall conduct a hearing to determine the fair market value of the property not sooner than 30 days after a copy of the notice of the appraisal is sent to each party under subdivision (e), whether or not an objection to the appraisal is filed under paragraph (3) of subdivision (e). After the hearing on the fair market value of the property under section 874.316(f), but before considering the merits of the partition action, the court must determine the property's fair market value and send notice of same to the parties. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 874.316(g)).
Code of Civil Procedure section 872.140 provides in relevant part: “The court may, in all cases, order allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustment among the parties according to the principles of equity.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 872.140)."Every partition action includes a final accounting according to the principles of equity for both charges and credits upon each cotenant’s interest. Credits include expenditures in excess of the cotenant’s fractional share for necessary repairs, improvements that enhance the value of the property, taxes, payments of principal and interest on mortgages, and other liens, insurance for the common benefit, and protection and preservation of title.” (Wallace v. Daley (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1035-1036).
Section 873.220 provides that: "As far as practical, and to the extent it can be done without material injury to the rights of the other parties, the property shall be so divided as to allot to a party any portion that embraces improvements made by that party or that party’s predecessor in interest. In such division and allotment, the value of such improvements shall be excluded." (Code Civ. Proc., § 873.220).
III. ANALYSIS Defendant Ron Estrada asserts that under Coe of Civil Procedure section 874.313(a), PRPA applies to the Subject Property filed on or after January 1, 2023. (Motion, at p. 5). Defendant avers under sections 874.311(b) and 874.313(a) that PRPA applies the Subject Property held in common where there is no agreement in a record binding all the contents which govern the partition of the property. (Id.). As to the joint tenancy, the defendant alleges to own 75% interest and the plaintiff to own 25% interest in the Subject Property. (Id.; Declaration of Brown). Defendant asserts that there is no recorded agreement governing the partition of the Subject Property. (Id.).
Here, there is no agreement in record binding the parties to the Subject Property which governs the partition of the Property. The property is “heirs property” because the October 28, 1987 grant deed shows that the property is titled in the names of William R. Estrada and Jeanne L. Estrada as husband and wife/joint tenants, and parents to Ronald Estrada and Rolan Estrada, their sons, whom they leave title to as follows: Ronald Estrada 75% interest and Rolan Estrada 25% interest. (Declaration of Brown; Exhibit 5 (followed by sub. Exh. 1), at p. 51). Thus, as both parties acquired title from their blood relatives pursuant to section 874.312(i), this prong is satisfied.
A. APPOINTMENT OF APPRAISER Defendant seeks an order for appointment of a licensed, disinterested appraiser to determine the fair market value
of the Subject Property. (Motion, at p.2). The defendant seeks an order appointing Bradley Carneghi of Carneghi- Nakasako & Associates as appraiser of the Subject Property. (Motion, at p. 6; Declaration of Brown; Exhibit 7). Defendant asserts that Bradley Carneghi is a licensed level “AG” Certified General Appraiser, which is the highest level of appraiser licensing. (Id.).
Here, Appraiser Bradley Carneghi has no relationship with the parties and is a licensed level AG appraiser. Under section 874.316(d), the Court finds this prong satisfied.
B. OFFSETS Defendant seeks an order confirming that if the defendant elects to buy all of the plaintiff’s 25% interests in the Subject Property, the defendant will be entitled to offsets for maintenance, taxes, and preservation of title through the money judgment and that he will be credited against any sum otherwise payable to the plaintiff. (Id., at p. 3). Defendant estimates having spent approximately $215,747.35 from 1987 through 2025 on property taxes and road maintenance on the subject property. (Declaration of Brown; Exhibit 10).
Based on the plaintiff’s quarter interest in the Subject Property, the defendant seeks offset in the amount of $53,954.74. Defendant states that the property value and property tax figures were estimated on current values and assumed a tax rate of 1.3% per year. (Id., at p. 14). The estimated annual road maintenance expenses were based on estimated costs of $150.00 per week, annualized, and was then reduced annually by an assumed inflation rate of 2.6% per year. (Id.).
Defendant seeks to exercise the right of first refusal. Under the PRPA, “[i]f any cotenant requested partition by sale, the court shall, after the determination of value under Section 874.316, send notice to the parties that any cotenant except a cotenant that requested partition by sale may buy all the interests of the cotenants that requested partition by sale.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 874.317(a)). The Court finds that the defendant may buy interests of the plaintiff under section 874.317(b).
The Court calculates that 25% of the $215,747.35 amounts to $53,936.84. The request for offset for maintenance, taxes of the Subject Property, which the Court finds appropriate and satisfied.
C. CREDITS Defendant seeks an order that if the Subject Property is sold, the offset amounts shall be deducted from the plaintiff’s share of the sale proceeds and paid to the defendant. (Id.). The defendant acquired a money judgment against the plaintiff. The underlying judgment as of April 3, 2023 was $98,037.70. Per diem interest in the amount of $16.64 is applied and as of October 16, 2025, the judgment amounts to $113,462.98. The defendant states the judgment was acquired to benefit he Subject Property owners, and seeks an offset any amounts owed to Plaintiff in the partition. (Motion, at p. 8).
Defendant seeks to determine whether the money judgment that was awarded again the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant may be satisfied in whole or in party as consideration, and to confirm taxes and maintenance costs paid by the defendant as an offset in the defendant’s favor. (Id.). Defendant seeks to be credited against any buyout or distribution of proceeds from the sale of the Subject Property. (Id.). Additionally, Defendant seeks a hearing on the valuation of the Subject Property 60 days from the date of appointment of the appraiser for the hearing on valuation and providing notice to the parties in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 874.316 (e)-(f).
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the request to offset the credits based on the money judgment acquired by the defendant against the plaintiff.
IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, and the motion being unopposed, the Court GRANTS and ORDERS the following:
(1) Bradley Carneghi of Carneghi-Nakasako & Associates is appointed as appraiser of the Subject Property;
(2) The Defendant may elect to buy all of the plaintiff’s 25% interest of the Subject Property and the defendant will be entitled to offset for maintenance and taxes of the Subject Property for the plaintiff’s 25% portion of $53,936.84; and
(3) The offset amount for maintenance and taxes of $53,936.84 shall be deducted for plaintiff’s share if the Subject Property is sold.
The Court DENIES without prejudice the defendant’s request to credit the money judgment acquired against the plaintiff at this time.
The matter will return on September 29, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 1 for hearing on valuation and providing notice to the parties of the value. The Court will prepare the formal Order.
Calendar Line # 5 Case Name Itria Ventures LLC et al vs Shivendra Basnet et al