Daily Development for Wednesday, September
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
Thanks to Steve Winkler at Fidelity National
Title for this one
COTENANCY; PARTITION: In
appropriate case, where one cotenant's interest is insignificant, court may
order partition by an order vesting clear title in the cotenant with the larger
ownership interest subject to a cash payment from that cotenant to the cotenant
with the smaller ownership interest.
Fernandes v. Rodriguez, 54 Conn. App. 444,
1999 WL 622513 (Conn.App. 8/10/99)
In 1994, Fernandez acquired an apartment
building with Rodriguez for a price of $45,900. They intended to live in one
unit together. The took title as joint tenants. According to the majority, the
record does not disclose who became liable on the mortgage, but the dissent
concludes that both parties executed the mortgage and the note (which would be
consistent with the facts as they existed at that time). Fernandez
paid approximately $15,000 in down payment and closing costs, while Rodriguez
paid only $1000 (although the dissent notes that Rodriguez paid another $3500 in
other costs related to "move in" to the building). Rodriguez and
Fernandez lived together briefly in one of the apartments, and for four months
Rodriguez performed maintenance, repair and "fix up" to the apartment
preparatory to renting.
Rodriguez then stopped living in the shared
apartment and paid no attention to it for a period of about five years.
Fernandez claimed that Rodriguez was not expelled from the apartment and still
was welcome to live there. (In general, the trial court believed everything that
Fernandez said and doubted everything that Rodriguez said.) Fernandez rented out
the other three apartments in the building, and with the proceeds of the rents
paid the mortgage and maintained the premises, returning a net profit over the
five years of $1500.
Fernandez then brought an action to partition
the property and Rodriguez, in his answer, agreed to the partition, but the
parties were in dispute as to their respective economic shares in the property
and the proceeds.
The trial court found that Rodriguez'
interest in the property was, at best 10%. It ordered that Fernandez pay
Rodriguez his down payment plus 10% of the net value of the property, plus a
portion of the rents (there is no indication as to how the court computed
Rodriguez' share of the rents). The court denied any "possession rent"
to Rodriguez for the time that Fernandez lived in the apartment alone. Most
importantly, the court concluded that Rodriguez interest in the property was
"minimal" and as a consequence no partition sale was necessary. Upon
payment to Rodriguez of his share, which amounted, by the court's accounting, to
$4600, the court agreed to award full title to Fernandez.
Connecticut statutes address the question of
partition, and one of them described methods of partition as sale or physical
division of the properties. Nevertheless, the court concluded that where one
party's interests are minimal, a forced sale of that interest to the party
holding the larger interest was consistent with the statute. A dissenter
The dissent not only disagreed with the
remedy adopted by the court here for the first time in Connecticut, but also
disputed the conclusion that Rodriguez' interest amounted to only ten percent.
It noted that substantial evidence suggested that Rodriguez was (and would
remain) personally liable on the now $25,000 mortgage balance. And, as noted
above, found that Rodriguez had expended additional funds and "sweat
equity" at the outset. Fernandez' actions later in maintaining the
apartment all involved expenditure of rent monies, which the parties owned
jointly, so Fernandez never spent more on the apartent than Rodriguez.
Comment 1: Partition in most states is an
equitable remedy, and the discretion of an equity court is quite broad
presumably broad enough to encompass the remedy here. The only problem is the
rather specific statutory language, and indeed it is hard to see how the court
is justified in overlooking that language in reaching the result that it does.
Comment 2: The question of liability on the
mortgage note obviously is critical. If, indeed, Rodriguez was jointly and
severally liable on a $36,000 note as of the time of purchase, then Rodriguez'
interest was far greater than ten percent, and nothing that happened thereafter
could or should have changed that percentage interest.
in the Daily Development section generally are extracted from the Quarterly
Report on Developments in Real Estate Law, published by the ABA Section on Real
Property, Probate & Trust Law. Subscriptions to the Quarterly Report are
available to Section members only. The cost is nominal. For the last six years,
these Reports have been collated, updated, indexed and bound into an Annual
Survey of Developments in Real Estate Law, volumes 16, published by the ABA
Press. The Annual Survey volumes are available for sale to the public. For the
Report or the Survey, contact Maria Tabor at the ABA. (312) 988 5590 or
reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information purposes
only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the
forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary
provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data and opinions
expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the
publication of the ABA .
DIRT has a WebPage at: http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt>http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/