a. Facts-
Π and Δ were tenants in common, Π owned about 70% while Δ owned about 30%. Δ
had a “garbage business” and lived on her part of the land, and Π wanted to
develop the property. Π sued Δ to “force” a partition by sale because: if Π’s
business remained, the developed property’s value would be lowered; city
planning commission might not grant Π a permit to develop if Δ’s business was
still running; and proposed roads would have to be rerouted around Δ’s share. Δ
did NOT want to partition by sale, but rather wanted a partition in kind, which
would save her business and house.
b. Procedural
History- Trial Ct found for Π and ordered partition by sale, Δ appealed, Conn
Sup Ct reversed
c. Issue-
Whether a partition by sale promotes the best interests of the parties when
there is a statutory preference for partitions in kind
d. Holding-
No, in this case, a partition by sale did NOT promote the best interests of the
parties.
e. Rule-
Partition by sale should ONLY be ordered when two conditions are satisfied:
i.
It is NOT physically feasible to
partition the property in kind, AND
ii.
The interests of the owners would be
better served by a partition by sale
f. Rationale-
i.
The lower Ct failed to recognize that Δ
lives on her property and derives livelihood from said property
ii.
Economic and practical factors must be
weighed
g. Notes-
i.
Only 2 reasons why partition by sale
would increase value of property
1. Π
wanted to develop, thus raising value, AND
2. Partition
by kind would hinder the development
ii.
Cts today mainly favor sale over in kind
partition….if one party REALLY wants it, then they can just buy it
iii.
Main Points:
1. Partition
in kind is the default, sale is ONLY better option when in kind is impossible
or the interests of the owners would be better served
2. While
the Cts say they like in kind better, the reality is that sale is more
prevalent (and better)
No comments:
Post a Comment