Ballard v. Dornic
140 A.3d 1147
| D.C. | 2016Background
- Co-owners (joint tenants) Matthew Dornic (plaintiff/appellee) and Glenn Ballard (defendant/appellant) jointly own two properties: a single‑family home (Dumbarton) and a condominium (U Street). Dornic sought partition‑by‑sale; Ballard lives in the Dumbarton property.\
- Superior Court granted Dornic partial summary judgment ordering partition‑by‑sale and directed the parties to confer on a trustee to sell; sale was stayed pending appeal.\
- Ballard argued (1) Dornic had voluntarily limited his right to partition by paying a much smaller share of mortgage/expenses and (2) a partition‑in‑kind (awarding whole properties to Ballard) was appropriate and equitable.\
- Dornic disputed Ballard’s factual assertions about unequal contributions; the record contained contested allegations about large disparities in mortgage payments and alleged unpaid rents.\
- The trial court found the properties could not be physically divided without loss and concluded sale was appropriate; the court did not find evidence Dornic voluntarily relinquished partition rights nor that he lacked any meaningful ownership share.\
Issues
| Issue | Dornic’s Argument | Ballard’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a cotenant’s unilateral right to partition can be defeated by unequal contributions | Cotenant has a unilateral right to partition unless voluntarily limited | Unequal financial contributions (Dornic paid much less) amount to a voluntary limitation or justify denying sale | Rejected Ballard’s novel theory; unequal payments do not, by themselves, show voluntary waiver of partition rights |
| Whether property must be partitioned by sale because it cannot be divided without loss | Property (house and condo) cannot be physically divided without injury; sale warranted | Court erred on incomplete record; factual disputes about contributions and rents require accounting before ordering sale | Affirmed sale: undisputed that physical division would diminish value and no material factual issue prevented partial summary judgment |
| Whether partition‑in‑kind awarding whole properties to Ballard is available | Ballard: award full properties to him (he would refinance mortgages) to avoid sale | Dornic: presumptive equal shares; Ballard’s allegations do not prove Dornic’s share is zero | Denied: presumption of equal shares can be rebutted, but record did not show Dornic had no ownership interest or that full award to Ballard was warranted |
| Whether equity required denying sale or forcing Dornic to sell interest to Ballard | Dornic: public sale protects both parties; cannot force sale of one cotenant’s interest to the other | Ballard: equitable to credit Dornic’s interest toward debts and convey interests to Ballard | Denied: court may not compel a cotenant to sell interest to other; no abuse of discretion in ordering sale and permitting public bidding |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Carter, 516 A.2d 917 (D.C. 1986) (cotenant entitled to partition; court chooses sale vs. in‑kind but equity cannot override statutory right)\
- Willard v. Willard, 145 U.S. 116 (1892) (a cotenant’s right to partition cannot be defeated by another cotenant’s unwillingness)\
- Sebold v. Sebold, 444 F.2d 864 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (presumption of equal shares for joint tenants is rebuttable by evidence of unequal contributions)\
- Robinson v. Evans, 554 A.2d 332 (D.C. 1989) (parties may limit partition by agreement; sale will not unjustly enrich a cotenant who contributed)\
- Hipp v. Hipp, 191 F. Supp. 299 (D.D.C. 1960) (property subject to partition may be awarded wholly to one cotenant depending on facts)\
- Arthur v. District of Columbia, 857 A.2d 473 (D.C. 2004) (standard of review for legal conclusions and summary judgment principles)\
- Ford v. Ford, 98 A.3d 1008 (D.C. 2014) (reaffirming unilateral right to partition and summary judgment review)