Shvartser v. Lekser
257 F. Supp. 3d 30
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Shvartser and his adult daughter Lekser purchased a single-family home in Washington, D.C. on October 24, 2008; the deed expressly created a joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
- The parties dispute virtually all factual details (who funded renovations, alleged fraud, power of attorney, refinancing), but do not contest the deed or that they are joint tenants.
- In 2015 a power of attorney was executed and an $800,000 loan from SP Funding was obtained; that loan is now in default.
- Shvartser sued in 2016 and amended his complaint to include a claim for partition by sale; he moved for partial summary judgment seeking partition, access to renovate/market the house, and deposit of sale proceeds with the Court.
- Lekser opposes partition but has not identified any written agreement limiting partition rights or any evidence undermining the deed; she asserts alternative factual narratives and ongoing foreclosure mediation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to partition | Shvartser: as a cotenant (joint tenant) he has an absolute right to seek partition under D.C. law | Lekser: disputes propriety of partition but does not contest deed or show any agreement limiting partition | Court: granted summary judgment — cotenant right to partition confirmed (no disputed facts defeating right) |
| Partition in kind vs. by sale | Shvartser: sale is required because single-family home cannot be physically divided and delay harms value | Lekser: opposes sale, contends partition in kind may be appropriate (but offers no concrete basis) | Court: ordered partition by sale (single-family home cannot be divided without material impairment) |
| Who should market/sell the property | Shvartser: requests permission to access, renovate, and market/sell the property himself (with professionals) | Lekser: opposes partition but did not specifically object to Shvartser managing sale if ordered | Court: permitted Shvartser to prepare and sell the property (court found aligned incentives to maximize sale) |
| Disposition of sale proceeds pending resolution of other claims | Shvartser: proceeds should be escrowed/deposited with Court until other claims determine each party’s share | Lekser: did not oppose escrow proposal | Court: ordered proceeds deposited with the Court pending resolution of remaining claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Carter, 516 A.2d 917 (D.C. 1986) (recognizing cotenant’s unilateral right of partition)
- Willard v. Willard, 145 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1892) (early recognition of partition rights in D.C.)
- Ballard v. Dornic, 140 A.3d 1147 (D.C. 2016) (trial court discretion to choose partition in kind or sale; test for impairment)
- Johnston v. Hundley, 987 A.2d 1123 (D.C. 2010) (appointing a trustee to market and sell is the normal route in partition cases)
- Sebold v. Sebold, 444 F.2d 864 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (court ordinarily determines ownership shares before division but may order sale first in equity)
- Stancil v. First Mt. Vernon Indus. Loan Ass’n, 131 A.3d 867 (D.C. 2014) (statute of frauds bars enforcement of oral agreements affecting real property)
- Arthur v. District of Columbia, 857 A.2d 473 (D.C. 2004) (tenancy by entirety not subject to partition provisions)