O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-6-186 (2019)

Partitions in kind.

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If all the interests of all cotenants that requested partition by sale are not purchased by other cotenants pursuant to Code Section 44-6-185 , or if after conclusion of the buyout under Code Section 44-6-185 , a cotenant remains that has requested partition in kind, the court shall order partition in kind unless the court, after consideration of the factors listed in Code Section 44-6-187 , finds that partition in kind will result in manifest prejudice to the cotenants as a group. In considering whether to order partition in kind, the court shall approve a request by two or more parties to have their individual interests aggregated. In determining under paragraph (1) of this subsection whether partition in kind would result in manifest prejudice to the cotenants as a group, the court shall consider the following: Whether the heirs property practicably can be divided among the cotenants; Whether partition in kind would apportion the property in such a way that the aggregate fair market value of the parcels resulting from the division would be materially less than the value of the property if it were sold as a whole, taking into account the condition under which a court ordered sale likely would occur; Evidence of the collective duration of ownership or possession of the property by a cotenant and one or more predecessors in title or predecessors in possession to the cotenant who are or were relatives of the cotenant or each other; A cotenant's sentimental attachment to the property, including any attachment arising because the property has ancestral or other unique or special value to the cotenant; The lawful use being made of the property by a cotenant and the degree to which the cotenant would be harmed if the cotenant could not continue the same use of the property; The degree to which the cotenants have contributed their pro rata share of the property taxes, insurance, and other expenses associated with maintaining ownership of the property or have contributed to the physical improvement, maintenance, or upkeep of the property; and Any other relevant factor. The court shall not consider any one factor listed in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to be dispositive without weighing the totality of all relevant factors and circumstances. If the court does not order partition in kind under subsection (a) of this Code section, the court shall order partition by sale pursuant to Code Section 44-6-187 or, if no cotenant requested partition by sale, the court shall dismiss the action. If the court orders partition in kind pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section, the court may require that one or more cotenants pay one or more other cotenants amounts so that the payments, taken together with the value of the in-kind distributions to the cotenants, will make the partition in kind just and proportionate in value to the fractional interests held. If the court orders partition in kind, the court shall allocate to the cotenants that are unknown, unlocatable, or the subject of a default judgment, if their interests were not bought out pursuant to Code Section 44-6-185 , a part of the property representing the combined interests of these cotenants as determined by the court, and this portion of the property shall remain undivided.

History

(Code 1981, § 44-6-186 , enacted by Ga. L. 2012, p. 97, § 2/HB 744.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2022–2022 · leading case: Paula Whatley Matabane v. Lynn Whatley, 873 S.E.2d 730 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
Paula Whatley Matabane v. Lynn Whatley, 873 S.E.2d 730 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 21× “However, instead of proceeding to hear the merits of the partition-in-kind action, the court dismissed the action, citing OCGA § 44-6-186 (b). OCGA § 44-6-186 (a) (1) states: “If .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.