Britton v. Brown
Annotate this CaseDefendant jointly owned real property as tenants in common with her sister, Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a partition action, seeking equitable partition of the property or, in the alternative, a forced sale of the property and equal division of the net sale proceeds. Three partition referees appointed by the district court submitted a final report recommending that the property be divided into two parcels. Defendant presented offers of proof challenging the referees' final report, but the district court confirmed the proposed partition. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying her request for an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's final partition judgment, holding (1) when a party makes a substantiated claim of factual or legal error in the referees' report, due process and equitable concerns require the district court to hold a hearing to determine whether the referees' report equitably divides the real property prior to confirming, changing, or modifying the report; and (2) in this case, Defendant's objections were sufficient to compel the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.