## Facts

- Angelo and William Delfino and Helen C. Vealencis owned a 20.5-acre parcel in Bristol, Connecticut, as tenants in common.
- The Delfinos held an undivided 99/144 interest and sought to develop the land into a 45-lot residential subdivision.
- Vealencis held an undivided 45/144 interest, lived in a dwelling on the property, and operated a rubbish/garbage removal business there.
- The Delfinos filed suit seeking partition by sale under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-500, with proceeds divided by ownership share.
- Vealencis sought partition in kind under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-495 and requested appointment of a committee to physically divide the property.
- The trial court found partition in kind would cause “material injury” and ordered a sale at auction, with proceeds paid into court for distribution.
- Vealencis appealed, challenging the legal and factual basis for compelling a sale.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly concluded that partition in kind was impracticable or inequitable (i.e., would cause “material injury”) so as to permit a partition by sale.
2. Whether a sale would better promote the interests of all co-owners, considering both economic and non-economic interests.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court set aside the order of partition by sale and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that partition in kind was practicable on the record presented.
- The court held that the parties’ interests were better promoted by physical division than by a compelled sale.

## Legal Principles

- Partition in kind is the preferred remedy; a compelled sale is an extreme measure permissible only in clear cases.
- A court may order partition by sale only if both conditions are met: (1) partition in kind is impracticable or inequitable, and (2) a sale will better promote the interests of the owners.
- “Interests of the owners” requires consideration of all co-owners’ interests, not merely maximizing aggregate financial return.
- Non-economic interests—such as continued residence and the ability to continue a livelihood tied to the property—must be weighed when deciding between division and sale.
- A showing of inconvenience or greater value from unified development, without more, does not justify overriding a co-owner’s right to take a portion in severalty.

## Conclusion

The court reversed a forced sale because the land could be physically divided without material injury and because a sale that primarily increased the majority owners’ development value did not outweigh the minority owner’s substantial residential and business interests in remaining on the property.


Delfino v. Vealencis, 181 Conn. 533, 436 A.2d 27 (Conn. 1980)