Nielson

DISCUSSION

Nielson contends the trial court erred when it: (1) declined his request to apportion his attorney fee and cost award to Courtney, and (2) awarded Courtney fees. We disagree. “The costs of partition include . . . [¶] [r]easonable attorney[] fees incurred or paid by a party for the common benefit.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.010, subd. (a).) A trial court shall apportion these costs “among the parties in proportion to their interests[,] or make such other apportionment as may be equitable.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.040.) We review a ruling based on such equitable considerations for abuse of discretion. (Lin v. Jeng (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1025.) We will not disturb it unless the appellant shows that the court “exceeded the bounds of reason, resulting in a miscarriage of justice” (ibid.), or that “ ‘there is no substantial evidence to support the . . . court’s findings’ ” (Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 957, 966 (Orien)). Nielson made neither showing here. He first argues the trial court should have apportioned his attorney fee award entirely to Courtney, but he supports this argument with no legal analysis. “Whether legal or factual, no error warrants reversal…