Also known as: partitions · partitio
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The division of real property held jointly or in common by co-owners into individually owned interests. The division may occur through physical allocation of parcels or through a judicial sale followed by distribution of the proceeds among the former co-owners.
Peter Park and Pablo Perez hold title to a warehouse as tenants in common. Peter received his share under a deed creating a fee tail preserved only for his lifetime. Pablo files an action to compel partition by sale. The court grants the action because Pablo's fee-simple-like interest carries the power to compel partition while Peter's preserved estate does not.
Parker Phillips and Portia Price inherit a farm as joint tenants. The property contains the region's only authorized irrigation well and water regulations bar any new wells or separation of water rights. Parker seeks partition in kind. The court orders a sale instead because no physical division can produce two usable parcels.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Progressive Healthcare and Prime Logistics own adjoining parcels as tenants in common. Progressive alone grants an easement across the shared driveway to a neighbor. The neighbor later sues for recognition of the easement. The court holds that partition of the parcels will supply the missing consent and perfect the servitude against the entire estate.
Phoenix Technologies holds real estate in trust for three beneficiaries. The trustee determines that dividing one parcel will better serve the trust purposes. The trustee executes a partition deed that converts the single tract into three separate lots and distributes one lot to each beneficiary.
Pamela Phillips and Patricia Patel receive adjacent lots under a will that bars partition for ten years to allow joint development. After seven years Pamela seeks immediate partition. The court enforces the restraint because the ten-year period is reasonable and the will expressly created it.
After their relationship ends, the parties in Watts v. Watts hold both real and personal property as co-owners. One party files an action under the partition statutes. The court recognizes that the statutes supply a remedy to divide the accumulated assets between the former partners.
No. A tenancy by the entirety is treated as owned by the marital unit. Neither spouse acting alone may compel partition while the marriage continues.
Supporting sources
A court may order sale when physical division would be inequitable or impossible. Factors include physical characteristics of the land and external legal constraints such as zoning rules that render separate parcels unusable.
Supporting sources
No. Under the governing statute an estate preserved in fee-tail form for a single lifetime lacks the ordinary fee-simple incident of the power to compel partition. The other cotenants retain that power.
Supporting sources
Yes. A restraint on the power to compel partition that lasts only for a reasonable time is valid.
Supporting sources
No. Each cotenant possesses an independent statutory power to compel partition regardless of objections from the remaining owners.
Supporting sources
…F.2d 829 (D.C. Cir. 1942). A joint tenancy may be destroyed by voluntary alienation, or by levy and execution, or by compulsory partition, but a tenancy by the entirety may not. The indivisibility of the estate, except by joint action of the spouses, is an indispensable feature of the tenancy by the entirety. Ashbaugh v.…