Eli v. Eli

• Mrs. Eli's family owned 117 acres of land in South Dakota for about 100 years.
• In 1992, Mrs. Eli deeded 1/3 of undivided interest in 112 acres of the aforesaid land to each of her 3 sons.
• 1 of the Eli sons transferred his interest to his daughter
• The 112 acres were L-shaped; thus, it was necessary to pass through the south-westerly parcel to reach to north-westerly parcel
• Until 1996, the 112 acres were rented out under 1 lease & farmed as a single unit.

• In 1996, the 2 sons of Mrs. Eli sought to force a sale of the entire property of 112 acres while the grand-daughter sought to partition her portion in the trial court in South Dakota
• The grand-daughter who was seeking to partition the land lost.

Should property be partitioned at a co-owner's request if a co-owner opposes its sale?

The lawyer for the 2 uncles contended that the 112-acre land's worth would be up to 20% more if the parcels were sold as 1 unit.

Property should be partitioned at a co-owner's request if a co-owner opposes its sale & partitioning doesn't cause greater prejudice to the co-owners under the circumstances.

Reversed

• The South Dakota Supreme Court judges explained that the law strongly dis-favors forced sales.
• The 112 acres of land could easily be divided & was usable as individual parcels.