California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Nickerman v. Ryan, 155 Cal.Rptr. 830, 93 Cal.App.3d 564 (Cal. App. 1979):
In that case, unlike this case, there was no attempt to settle the affairs of persons holding property in some form of joint ownership. We find that Comstock v. Fiorella (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 262, 67 Cal.Rptr. 104, points the way to the disposition of this case. There a note was given in satisfaction of the difference resulting when partnership property was distributed on dissolution. One partner took all of the property and gave a note, secured by deed of trust on the real property, to the other for the agreed value of his one-half interest. The court found that the transaction did not create a "purchase money security." The decision noted that on dissolution the partners were entitled to an accounting and final settlement by action or by agreement. So here the parties were entitled to an action of partition, or they could agree, as they did, on their respective rights. The Comstock court continued: "The agreement, however, retains the character and legal effect of an accounting and distribution and does not constitute a sale and purchase of the partnership's real property. The interest of a partner in the firm assets is the share to which he is entitled after claims against the firm and accounts between the partners are settled; it is an equitable interest enforceable by an action for an accounting, (citations)." (260 Cal.App.2d at p. 265, 67 Cal.Rptr. at p. 106.) So here there was a settlement of the parties' joint affairs in the ownership and management of the apartments and motel, and their remaining property and debts.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.