842.14 Judgment of partition.
(1) If the court has determined that partition is proper under s. 842.07 or on adoption by the court of a report recommending partition without sale, the court may order or render judgment of partition which shall be conclusive on all the parties to the action and their legal representatives and on all persons claiming or to claim from such parties or persons or any of them, subsequent to the filing of the notice of the pendency of the action.
(2) Such judgment shall not affect the interests of lienholders or tenants, except that if a tenant obtained a lease from less than all of the cotenant owners, the tenant's lease shall be extinguished by the judgment, and the tenant shall have judgment for damages against the cotenant who granted the lease.
(3) If partition is adjudged, existing liens shall not be affected or impaired, except that a lien upon an undivided interest or estate shall thereafter be a charge only on the share assigned to the party against whom it exists, which share shall be charged with its just proportion of the costs in preference to such lien.
(4) If partition is adjudged, and if it appears that it cannot be made equal between the parties without prejudice to the rights or interests of some of them, the court may provide in its judgment that compensation be made by one party to the other for equality of partition, according to the equity of the case; and where any party has with the knowledge or assent of the others or any of them, made improvements upon lands partitioned, the portion of such lands upon which such improvements have been made may be allotted to such party without computing in their value the value of such improvements.
(5) A copy of the judgment shall be recorded in each county in which any part of the premises are situated, and the expense of such copy and record shall be taxed in the costs.
History: 1973 c. 189; Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 767, 782 (1975); Stats. 1975 s. 842.14; 1993 a. 486.
A cotenant could not have asked to be reimbursed for disproportionately borne expenses until unity of possession was dissolved and the property, or any proceeds from the sale of the property, was being divided in proportion to the economic interests held by the parties. O'Connell, Jr. v. O'Connell, 2005 WI App 51, 279 Wis. 2d 406, 694 N.W.2d 429, 04-0895.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.