Blog

BLOG / 05.01.25 /Avi Strauss

Court Victory Offers Important Reminder for Partition Actions

Almost 30 years ago, our client and his business partner together purchased a three-story residential apartment building as tenants in common. The client devoted substantial time and effort to management of the building and the two partners split the rent profits. In 2019, the business partner passed away without a will, and the decedent’s siblings were issued letters of administration over the estate by the surrogate court.

The administrators offered to sell the decedent’s interest in the property to our client for a price far above market value. After he declined to meet the estate’s asking price, the estate administrators filed a Supreme Court action seeking (i) a declaration that they (as administrators of the Estate) owned a 50% interest in the property; and (ii) a court order forcing a partition sale of the Property. Soon thereafter, the estate administrators filed a motion for summary judgment on their claims.

Court’s Decision

 In its February 4, 2025, Decision and Order, the court denied the estate administrators’ motion on grounds that plaintiffs had failed to establish that they were distributees of the decedent and did not otherwise identify all the distributees of the decedent.

It is black letter law that when a property owner dies intestate, “…title to real property automatically vests in his or her distributees as tenants in common. This vesting by descent occurs by operation of law at the time of the decedent’s death, regardless of any failure to appoint an administrator or to file new deeds, or, if an administrator is appointed, without the necessity for any act by the administrator.” In the case at bar, the court determined that title to the decedent’s ownership interest in the building had passed to his distributees automatically, as a matter of law, when the business partner died intestate.

On their motion, the plaintiffs did not establish that they were the decedent’s distributees. And a plaintiff can only establish his or her right to summary judgment on a cause of action for partition and sale by demonstrating their ownership and right to possession of the property.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not identify the names of all person(s) who may have been the decedent partner’s distributees. They did not submit any documentary evidence establishing whether any children, spouses, or parents survived the decedent, and did not provide evidence regarding any other siblings who may have survived the decedent.

The court’s decision offers a simple, but valuable, reminder that a partition action must name all parties who have an ownership interest in the subject property.