[WSBARP] MSJ Possibility for Motion to Partition

Thu Feb 12 10:44:33 PST 2026

Follow the partition statute RCW 7.52. None of those matters need an SJ in my opinion. They are both on the deed together as tenants in common. The statute specifically spells out who has the right to partition 7.52.010. I assume you pled both in your complaint. Unless the answer claims those things are not correct, then you proceed under the steps of the statute.

I have done many partition actions which rarely result in an actual auction for sale. If neither party can pay the mortgage themselves, the property will be sold either with cooperation or after a LOT more legal fees coming off the top (referee possibly included). I told the uncooperative party, “easy way or hard way?” Just like I do with my toddlers! haha

I have moved the court for an order to appoint an appraiser, and order to appoint realtor, an order to comply signatures on a contract and all transfer docs (after defendant agreed to privately sell but wouldn’t cooperate further). I have then moved the court for an order to disburse funds. It is a slow and tedious process but one you can get through if you follow the statute. In this case, the additional steps cost the defendant ALL of his equity in the property plus we got a judgment against him for the excess costs to my client.

Good luck.

Teena Williams
[Logo Color 946x243 pixels]
1800 Cooper Point RD SW NO. 8  |  Olympia, WA 98502
Telephone 360.352.1970  |  Fax 877.606.3656 |  www.jaglaw.net<http://www.jaglaw.net/>
Teena at jaglaw.net<mailto:Teena at jaglaw.net>
Please note the use or modification of any documents prepared by this office outside the purpose for which they were prepared will result in a waiver of professional responsibility due from Goldstein Law Office, PLLC and may result in harm or unintended consequences.

Nothing contained herein should be construed as legal advice. The purpose of this email is to transmit a message or document. Should you not be the intended recipient of this email message, please reply advising of the mistake and then delete this message from your computer. Should you have any questions, please call the Sender at 360-352-1970.  No trees were killed in sending this message (however, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced).

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Gabriel Dietz
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 10:09 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] MSJ Possibility for Motion to Partition

Please include me in responses. I have a similar matter.

Thank you,

Gabriel A. Dietz, Partner
Hoerschelmann Dietz PLLC
Attorneys at Law
p: (206) 451-3859
f: (206) 337-4506
gabe at hdpnw.com<mailto:gabe at hdpnw.com>
www.hdpnw.com<http://www.hdpnw.com/>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, including any attachments, contains privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and shred the materials and any attachments. You are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, copying, or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify me by email or telephone.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 10:03 AM Lynn Clare <lynnclare at clarelawfirm.com<mailto:lynnclare at clarelawfirm.com>> wrote:
All

Quick Facts: 3 year relationship. Couple buy house. She leaves. She pays for another year of the house expenses, but that was 2.5 years ago. NO CIR. She brings motion to partition. He refuses to cooperate with mediation. He has repeatedly claimed he cannot get enough cash to buy her out or refinance. He (pro se) has just brought a motion for summary judgment claiming basically that it's been long enough and the court should just REMOVE her from the title.

It's clever.  Wrong, but clever. I'm not worried about my response to that, but do I have any possibility of a partial summary judgment in my client's favor?  Obviously as to "tenants in common" and also as to "she can partition" - but what about as to "her interest in the property expressed as a share %" or "this house will be sold."  ????

Thoughts?

Lynn Clare
Clare Law Firm

***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260212/2460cb8d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4842 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260212/2460cb8d/image001.jpg>