Divorce Lawyers Phoenix

 A party’s right to partition is not affected by the fact that the property in question is the family home in which minor children presently reside.  In re Mercer
 In a divorce action the trial court erred in denying defendant husband his right to partition the marital home which was held with wife in joint tenancy.  Renwick v. Renwick
 Where a husband established no special or superior equities in business property, under former section 17 of the Divorce Act (see now this section), and the decree referred to none, which would serve as an equitable basis for denying the wife her right to partition, but instead the decree referred only to inconvenience and possible hardship that may have resulted to the husband from the change in the relations of the parties to the estate, in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary, the absolute right to partition yielded to no consideration of hardship, inconvenience or difficulty, and the decree denying partition was improper.  Peck v. Peck
 For a case discussing partition of real property see Adams v. Adams

Also see Los Angeles Divorce Lawyers