Delfino v. Vealencis case
brief
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
436 A.2d 27
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant
appealed a judgment which granted plaintiff's motion for partition by
sale of land owned as tenants in common under Conn. Gen. Stat. §
52-500, in the Superior Court in the judicial district of
Hartford-New Britain (Connecticut).
FACTS: Plaintiffs and defendant owned a rectangular twenty acre parcel of land as tenants in common. Defendant occupied a dwelling and operated a business from the land. Defendant objected to the lower court's order of a partition by sale, claiming the decision was unsupported by subordinate facts and other factors were improperly considered.
HOLDING:
The court agreed, finding a partition in kind was favored over partition by sale.
ANALYSIS:
The court determined partition by sale should be ordered only when two conditions are met: physical attributes of the land render partition in kind impracticable or inequitable; and owners' interest would better be promoted by a partition by sale. The court found the lower court failed to recognize the shape of the parcel and location of dwelling made partition in kind particularly feasible. The court further found error in the finding that city planning commission would withhold subdivision approval based on defendant's business operations.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed order of partition by sale in defendant's favor because the facts before the court were insufficient as a matter of law to overcome the preference for partition in kind.
---
FACTS: Plaintiffs and defendant owned a rectangular twenty acre parcel of land as tenants in common. Defendant occupied a dwelling and operated a business from the land. Defendant objected to the lower court's order of a partition by sale, claiming the decision was unsupported by subordinate facts and other factors were improperly considered.
HOLDING:
The court agreed, finding a partition in kind was favored over partition by sale.
ANALYSIS:
The court determined partition by sale should be ordered only when two conditions are met: physical attributes of the land render partition in kind impracticable or inequitable; and owners' interest would better be promoted by a partition by sale. The court found the lower court failed to recognize the shape of the parcel and location of dwelling made partition in kind particularly feasible. The court further found error in the finding that city planning commission would withhold subdivision approval based on defendant's business operations.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed order of partition by sale in defendant's favor because the facts before the court were insufficient as a matter of law to overcome the preference for partition in kind.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment