Foppiano v. Valera CA1/1

Filed 2/5/26 Foppiano v. Valera CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

LUIS FOPPIANO, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents A172112

v. (Mendocino County . SUSAN VALERA, Super. Ct. No. 21CV00971 Defendant and Appellant,

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In this partition action, defendant Susan Valera (Valera) appeals from an interlocutory order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs Louis M. Foppiano (individually and as trustee under the Helaine Noreen Foppiano and Louis Michael Foppiano 1997 Trust), Carol Ryan (individually and as trustee of the Rodney Foppiano Trust), Mark Trione (individually and as trustee of the Rodney Foppiano Trust), Paul Foppiano (individually), and Gina M. Hocker (individually and as trustee of the Gina Marie Hocker revocable Trust). The defendants included Valera (individually and as

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1(2).

1

trustee of the Foppiano Trust for the benefit of James Valera), and Joseph, James, and Anthony Valera.2 We affirm. The property at issue is a 5,200-acre parcel in Mendocino County. Numerous people and trusts hold interests in the property. All parties agree the property should be partitioned, but they disagree on the method by which the partition should be accomplished. Plaintiffs sought to have the property sold, with the proceeds divided among the interest holders in proportion to their interests. Valera, in contrast, sought to have the property physically divided in order to receive a separate parcel. She did so in an attempt “to retain ownership of the parcels containing [her] primary residence and improvements.”3 The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs, and it entered interlocutory summary judgment in their favor under Code of Civil Procedure, section 872.720.4 The law governing the selection of a method to partition property is straightforward. If the trial court finds that a plaintiff is entitled to partition, it may select partition “ ‘in kind’—i.e., physical division of the property [citation]—according to the parties’ interests as determined in the interlocutory judgment. (§ 872.810; see § 873.210 et seq.) Alternatively, if the parties agree or the court concludes it ‘would be more equitable,’ the court