Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut; March 5, 1985; Connecticut; State Supreme Court
The appeal involves a dispute regarding a partition by sale of real estate in Oxford, owned by parties through their own rights and the estate of Anthony J. Stakum, who died in 1980. His will left three parcels of land (totaling approximately 105.3 acres) to various devisees. The Probate Court initially authorized the sale of parcels 1 and 3, which were co-owned by the parties as tenants in common, after a request from certain heirs and the executor. The plaintiff opposed this, leading to an appeal to the Superior Court after the Probate Court's order was affirmed.
The plaintiff contends that the Superior Court erred in granting a partition by sale, arguing that the land could be physically divided and that the defendants did not prove that a sale would serve the best interests of the estate. The court acknowledged the long-standing preference for partition in kind over partition by sale, emphasizing that the burden lies on the party seeking a sale to show that it better promotes the owners' interests. Ultimately, the court found no error in the Superior Court's decision to order a partition by sale, reinforcing the necessity for the defendants to demonstrate the advantages of such an approach.
A partition in kind is favored unless impracticable or inequitable, requiring proponents of a partition by sale to prove two conditions: the land's physical attributes make partition in kind unfeasible, and a sale would better serve the owners' interests. Historical context shows that statutory provisions for partition by sale were enacted to prevent inequities arising from strict adherence to partition in kind. The Probate Court can order a partition by sale if it determines this serves the best interests of the parties and the estate, as per General Statutes 45-257a. The statute mandates a full hearing and requires that sales not be ordered unless it benefits all parties involved. In this case, the defendants sought a partition by sale, which the plaintiff appealed. The Superior Court conducted a trial de novo, where claims regarding the partition of 105.37 acres were examined, including expert testimony and credibility assessments regarding the land. The court's discretion is central to determining whether partition by sale is preferable to partition in kind.
The trial court determined that selling the disputed 105-acre property is preferable to partitioning it, based on compelling evidence indicating that the property’s irregular T-shape limits its partition viability. The court emphasized that dividing the net proceeds from a sale would better serve the parties' interests. The property, primarily used as a dairy farm since before 1926, is situated in an industrial zone with two highways providing access. It features a farmhouse, barn, and outbuildings along Jack’s Hill Road, which offers the best access and views, making it an ideal site for industrial use. The land is mostly elevated with sloping contours, and an industrial water line runs along its frontage, although there are no city sewers nearby.
The plaintiff, a 56-year-old retired woman, wishes to retain a portion of the property for farming, specifically the area containing the farmhouse and barns, proposing to take about 25 acres while allowing the remaining 80 acres to be sold. Conversely, the defendants advocate for selling the entire tract as it is designated for industrial development, supported by zoning regulations and the Oxford economic development plan, which underscores the area’s potential for industrial growth linked to nearby infrastructure, including major highways and the Oxford airport. The trial court found no clear error in its decision, aligning with Practice Book 3060D.
The property in question is located in an area offering tax advantages due to high unemployment rates. Witness testimony indicated that the optimal use of the tract would be for a corporate headquarters or industrial purposes for a single user. However, the irregular shape of the tract limits its building potential, which includes approximately 25 acres of wetlands and significant ledge covering about 30 acres of the property. Development would necessitate setting aside around fifteen acres for a zoning-required buffer, an additional ten to fifteen acres for roads, and one to five acres for sewage disposal.
The plaintiff's claim that the trial court did not consider partitioning the property was rejected, as evidence presented in court demonstrated the impracticality of such an option. Experts largely agreed that the tract is best suited for a single user, who would desire complete control over the site, particularly the frontage along Jack’s Hill Road. This control is crucial for managing noise, pollution, and traffic. Corporate users are typically willing to pay a premium for ideal sites, which should ideally be around 100 acres. The 105-acre tract is notably one of the few available along the I-84 corridor with water access, which is vital for corporate or industrial development.
Two appraisals valued the property at $887,000 and $1,083,000, averaging $8,417.95 and $10,278.06 per acre, respectively. An expert broker estimated its value at approximately $15,000 per acre for industrial use. The most desirable building site for corporate development is identified on Jack’s Hill Road, with two suitable locations suggested by a civil engineering expert: one near the farmhouse and another towards the rear of the tract.
The preferred site for development is the former due to its proximity to the access road and utilities, which also positively influences storm drainage and sewage systems due to its elevation. Conversely, the rear site would incur higher construction and maintenance costs because it is further from these utilities, requiring the crossing of a valley that presents grading challenges and ledge issues. In addressing partition claims, evidence was presented regarding the physical suitability of the tract for partition in kind and the impact of separating the land sought by the plaintiff from the remainder. Experts testified that removing the front third of the property would significantly reduce the value of what remains, by 50 to 60 percent. The trial court considered the economic implications of partition options and acknowledged that the mere majority request for a partition by sale does not dictate the decision. Statutes in most states allow for sale under certain circumstances due to the impracticality of division in kind, which must also align with the best interests of all owners, including the decedent’s estate. The court found that beneficial division was not feasible and appropriately applied statutory considerations, determining that economic impacts for all owners were crucial in evaluating the merits of partition in kind versus partition by sale.
A statute permitting partition by sale is designed to provide a reasonable remedy for property enjoyment without depriving individuals of their property interests. This statute, specifically General Statutes 45-257a, is considered remedial and should be interpreted liberally. The plaintiff, Lucy Stakum Borzencki, argues that the trial court failed to consider public policy favoring farmland preservation; however, the court determines that the relevant public policy is that established in the partition statute, rendering the plaintiff's claim meritless. The case features parties related to the testator, Anthony J. Stakum, including his son William, who serves as executor, and other family members with varying interests. The statute allows the executor or majority interest owners to petition for partition during estate settlement. If not all interested parties agree, the court will conduct a hearing to determine if partition is in the best interest of the estate and parties involved. If the court finds that a sale would better serve the interests, it may order a sale instead of partition. The court can appoint a committee to handle the partition process, and any orders made will be binding on all interested parties and their heirs, treating the deceased's share as if it were partitioned during their lifetime.
A decree for partitioning real property must be recorded in the land records of the respective town. If any party entitled to the property’s proceeds is unknown, the court will appoint a trustee to manage that share, who must provide a probate bond. Janice Stakum, a defendant, later requested the sale of three parcels, specifically noting that the motion dated October 20, 1980, involved only Parcels 1 and 3, collectively 83.8 acres, which are co-owned by the estate, plaintiff, and defendants. Parcel 2, comprising 21.5 acres and owned solely by the estate, was not included in this motion. The Executor believes he can sell Parcel 2 without further motions under Connecticut General Statutes. The defendants wish to sell all parcels together.
Testimony indicated that not all 1,400 feet of frontage on Jack’s Hill Road is necessary for farming, and a rear parcel owned by the plaintiff’s son provides access to the road. Expert opinions from real estate professionals and engineers emphasized that the best use of the land is for corporate or industrial development along Jack’s Hill Road, although significant costs and challenges exist in subdividing the land due to its topography and wetlands. Anthony J. Stakum's estate has faced probate issues since his death in April 1980, with no distributions to heirs and liabilities of $126,000. The plaintiff argues that retaining a third of the land as farmland would substantially reduce federal estate taxes.
The estate's liquid assets amount to approximately $33,000, and the farmhouse is unoccupied, with the property containing outdated structures and equipment. The plaintiff cites Delfino v. Vealencis to argue against the sale, asserting that the defendants have not met the burden of proof for a sale and that a partition in kind would better serve the interests of all parties, including the decedent's estate.
The plaintiff's reliance on the Delfino case is deemed inappropriate due to significant factual distinctions. While the legal principles in Delfino are acknowledged, the statutes involved differ, with General Statutes 45-257a governing this case concerning probate administration of decedent estates. This statute requires consideration of factors absent in Delfino, including estate administration, expenses like federal estate taxes, and the lack of possession by the entitled parties. Key differences include the number of owners—more in this case than in Delfino—along with variations in property characteristics: Delfino involved a 20.5-acre urban parcel, whereas this case involves a 105-acre rural tract. In Delfino, both parties were in possession and had specific developmental intentions for the property, which contrasts with the current plaintiff's lack of residence or ongoing business on the land. Additionally, the size and nature of the land interests sought by the parties differ significantly. General Statutes 12-107a emphasizes the public interest in preserving farmland and open space, highlighting the importance of preventing forced conversions of such land due to economic pressures related to property taxation.
