Rieger v. Ackerman, 939 N.W.2d 413

Janice and Robert Rieger, Lyle Ackerman, and Kathleen Rub co-own a 473-acre agricultural parcel composed of three contiguous quarter-sections in Grant County.
In May 2017 Janice Rieger sued for partition, proposing an equal-in-area division into thirds so she could keep the southern third; Ackerman and Rub opposed and sought sale.
Referees reported valuations: 2016 appraisal valued the whole at $917,000; referees valued Rieger’s proposed southern third at $200,000, the middle third at $138,400, and the northern third at $153,000; middle+north together at $417,500 (rising to ≈$529,500 if a well were installed).
After trial the district court gave Ackerman and Rub six months to sell the northern two-thirds for 2/3 of the $917,000 appraisal (or other agreed amount); if no satisfactory sale within six months, the court ordered sale of the entire 473 acres and division of proceeds among the three owners.
The district court denied the Riegers’ motion for attorney’s fees as premature and questioned whether the fees were for the parties’ common benefit under N.D.C.C. § 32-16-45.
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the partition/sale order (no abuse of discretion) but remanded the attorney-fees issue for the district court to decide under the statutory framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should order partition in kind (Rieger keeps southern third) rather than sale	Rieger: court should order physical partition into thirds so she keeps southern one-third	Ackerman/Rub: partition would be inequitable; sale (or combined sale of their 2/3) needed to avoid prejudice	Court: affirmed district court — no abuse of discretion; allowed six months to sell 2/3 for a reasonable amount, otherwise whole-property sale allowed
Whether district court made the required finding of "great prejudice" and whether evidence supports it	Rieger: court failed to find great prejudice and evidence does not show partition would cause serious pecuniary injury	Ackerman/Rub: evidence (appraisal and referees’ valuations) shows value loss to them if property partitioned	Court: findings and reasoning satisfy great-prejudice standard; declined a bright-line % rule; evidence supports conclusion (not clearly erroneous)
Whether denial of attorney's fees was proper	Rieger: costs and reasonable counsel fees should be divided among owners (equal share)	Ackerman/Rub: fees may not have been for the common benefit; motion premature while sale-period pending	Court: denial was based on prematurity; remanded for district court to rule under N.D.C.C. § 32-16-45 (statutory standard)

Beach Railport, LLC v. Michels, 903 N.W.2d 88 (N.D. 2017) (standard of review in partition actions; preference for partition in kind and broad judicial discretion to do equity)
Estate of Loomer, 782 N.W.2d 648 (N.D. 2010) (partition is a matter of right among cotenants)
Schnell v. Schnell, 346 N.W.2d 713 (N.D. 1984) (explains "great prejudice"—when a partition share would be materially less than the money equivalent from sale)