## Facts

- The Reillys acquired a vendee’s interest under a real estate contract for three parcels in Pierce County, Washington, containing two houses.
- The Reillys later conveyed that vendee’s interest by quitclaim deed to themselves and the Sagesers as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- The parties executed a contemporaneous written agreement requiring each side to pay one-half of the real estate contract obligations and to share operation, upkeep, and maintenance costs.
- The agreement provided that on default by either side, all obligations became due and payable on demand.
- An addendum stated that if a party wished to withdraw, or if Glen Reilly or Bernard Sageser died or became permanently disabled, the other party would purchase the interest of the withdrawing, deceased, or disabled party.
- Disputes arose over expenses; the Reillys claimed the Sagesers failed to pay their one-half share, while the Sagesers asserted waiver and sought partition.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly ordered partition given the parties’ deed and their written co-ownership agreement with a buyout provision.
2. Whether the agreement and addendum limited or displaced any otherwise available right to partition during the agreement’s operation.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the portion of the judgment ordering partition and remanded for relief consistent with the parties’ agreement.
- The damages award to the Reillys for unpaid obligations was left undisturbed.
- The court held that the parties’ express agreement, including the buyout mechanism, controlled the remedies and was inconsistent with ordering partition at that time.

## Legal Principles

- Co-owners may, by express contract, define their rights and remedies in ways that limit or qualify the otherwise available remedy of partition.
- When parties provide a contractual mechanism for termination or transfer of interests (such as a buyout upon withdrawal, death, or disability), a court should not grant partition that conflicts with that mechanism while the agreement remains operative.
- Where an agreement specifies consequences of default (including acceleration and payment on demand), damages for breach may be awarded consistent with the contract even if partition is not.

## Conclusion

Because the parties’ written agreement established a specific allocation of payment duties and a buyout method for ending or altering the co-ownership, judicial partition was improper where it would bypass that contractual scheme; damages for nonpayment remained an appropriate contract remedy.


Reilly v. Sageser, 2 Wash. App. 6, 467 P.2d 358 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970)