{"id":856,"date":"2025-08-31T17:30:15","date_gmt":"2025-08-31T17:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=856"},"modified":"2025-08-31T17:30:15","modified_gmt":"2025-08-31T17:30:15","slug":"real-property-can-be-partitioned-based-on-equitable-factors-even-if-only-partys-name-is-on-the-deed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2025\/08\/31\/real-property-can-be-partitioned-based-on-equitable-factors-even-if-only-partys-name-is-on-the-deed\/","title":{"rendered":"Real property can be partitioned based on equitable factors even if only party\u2019s name is on the deed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

North Dakota law allows partition of real property when two parties intend to share ownership of the house, and they both contribute to its purchase and\/or maintenance, even if the deed is in the name of only one of the parties<\/em>. Berger v. Repnow<\/a>, 2025 ND 25, 16 N.W.3d 452 (N.D. 2025) (applying N.D. Cent. Code \u00a732-16-01. The court explained that North Dakota law affirms that \u201calthough legal ownership of property is strong evidence of an intention to not share property, legal ownership is not dispositive when the person who is not the legal owner has financially contributed to the acquisition of the property.\u201d However, the court held that the trial court erred in granting title to the house to one of the parties rather than dividing it between them by \u201cdetermin[ing] the parties\u2019 respective ownership interests based on their contributions to [the] property and any other relevant factors, and to make an award consistent with their proportionate ownership interests.\u201d This result would be unremarkable if the parties were married because property of married couples can be equitably divided on divorce (see N.D. Cent. Code \u00a7 14-05-24). But it was surprising given the lack of a marriage and the failure to put the names of both parties on the deed. It shows that courts exercise equitable powers to achieve the right result on division of property even when that diverges from formal documents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

North Dakota law allows partition of real property when two parties intend to share ownership of the house, and they both contribute to its purchase and\/or maintenance, even if the deed is in the name of only one of the parties. Berger v. Repnow, 2025 ND 25, 16 N.W.3d 452 (N.D. 2025) (applying N.D. Cent. Code \u00a732-16-01. The court explained that North Dakota law affirms that \u201calthough legal ownership of property is strong evidence of an intention to not share property, legal ownership is not dispositive when the person who is not the legal owner has financially contributed to the acquisition of the property.\u201d However, the court held that the trial court erred in granting title to the house to one of the parties rather than dividing it between them by \u201cdetermin[ing] the parties\u2019 respective ownership interests based on their contributions to [the] property and any other relevant factors, and …<\/p>\n

Real property can be partitioned based on equitable factors even if only party\u2019s name is on the deed<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[27,65,37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-concurrent-or-common-ownership","category-marital-property","category-title-issues"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/856","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}