[WSBARP] MSJ Possibility for Motion to Partition

[Lynn Clare]

We already had the "easy way/hard way talk."  He's pro se and I guess I was
looking for a "quicker, simpler" solution.  Thank you!

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 10:44 AM Teena Williams <Teena at jaglaw.net> wrote:

> 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*
>
> *[image: 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
>
> 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
>
> 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>
> 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
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
> ***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
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260212/d3f1c64b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4842 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260212/d3f1c64b/image001.jpg>