Delfino et al. v. Vealencis
181 Conn. 533 (1980) (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may order a partition by sale instead of a partition in kind only when two conditions are met: (1) the physical attributes of the land make a physical partition impracticable or inequitable, and (2) the interests of all co-owners would be better promoted by a sale. The burden of proof is on the party requesting the sale to demonstrate that these conditions are satisfied.
Facts:
- Angelo and William Delfino and Helen Vealencis owned a 20.5-acre parcel of land in Bristol, Connecticut, as tenants in common.
- The Delfinos owned an undivided 99/144 interest, while Vealencis owned an undivided 45/144 interest.
- Vealencis resided in a dwelling located on a portion of the property.
- Vealencis and her family had operated a rubbish and garbage removal business from the portion of the property she occupied since the 1920s.
- The Delfinos, one of whom was a residential developer, proposed to develop the entire property into forty-five residential building lots.
Procedural Posture:
- Angelo and William Delfino filed a lawsuit in the Connecticut Superior Court (trial court) seeking to partition property they co-owned with Helen Vealencis.
- The Delfinos originally requested a physical partition but later sought a judgment of partition by sale.
- Vealencis moved for a judgment of partition in kind.
- The trial court found that a partition in kind would cause 'material injury' to the parties' rights and ordered the property to be sold at auction.
- Vealencis, the defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court properly order a partition by sale of property held by tenants in common when a physical partition is practicable, and a sale would dispossess one co-owner of her home and livelihood, merely because the sale might be more economically profitable for the other co-owners?
Opinions:
Majority - Arthur H. Healey, J.
No. A court should not order a partition by sale when a partition in kind is both practicable and better promotes the interests of all owners, considering both economic and non-economic factors. The law has a long-standing preference for partition in kind (physical division) over partition by sale, which is considered an extreme remedy. To overcome this preference, the party requesting a sale must prove a two-part test: (1) that a physical partition is impracticable or inequitable, and (2) that the interests of all owners would be better served by a sale. Here, the large, rectangular parcel was physically practicable to divide. More importantly, the trial court erred by focusing only on the Delfinos' potential economic gain. It failed to give due consideration to Vealencis's substantial non-economic interests in her home and her livelihood, both of which would be destroyed by a sale. The court must consider the interests of all tenants, not just the economic gain of one.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong judicial preference for partition in kind over partition by sale. It clarifies that the standard of the "best interests of the owners" is a holistic one that requires courts to weigh not just the highest economic use of the property, but also the personal, non-monetary interests of the co-owners, such as maintaining a home or a livelihood. The decision establishes a precedent that one co-owner's desire for maximum profit cannot automatically override another's significant non-economic interests when a physical division is feasible. It places a significant burden on the party seeking a forced sale to prove it is the only equitable solution for everyone involved.
Unlock the full brief for Delfino et al. v. Vealencis