Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 32-17-4-1 (2026)
Compelling partition; defendants
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. (a) The following persons may compel partition of land held in joint tenancy or tenancy in common as provided under this chapter:
(1) A person that holds an interest in the land as a joint tenant or tenant-in-common either:
(A) in the person's own right; or
(B) as executor or trustee.
(2) If the sale of the estate of a decedent who held an interest in the land as a joint tenant or tenant in common is necessary, the decedent's administrator or executor.
(b) A trustee, an administrator, or an executor may be made a defendant in an action for the partition of real estate to answer as to any interest the trustee, administrator, or executor has in the real estate.
[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 32-4-5-1.]
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Void Marriage of Thomas v. Smith, 794 N.E.2d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Void Marriage of Thomas v. Smith, 794 N.E.2d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Indiana Code section 32-17-4-1 permits parties who have never been married to file a partition action as to real property.”
Buck v. Grube, 833 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “The Court concludes that, pursuant to Indiana Code § 32-17-4-1 et seq., the Plaintiffs have the right to partition.”
Scottish Rite of Indianapolis Found., Inc. v. Adams, 834 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Ind. Code § 32-17-4-1 . Indiana Code section 32-17-4-28, which requires that the petitioner hold an undivided interest in fee simple as well as a life estate in the remaining part of the land or any part of the remaining portion of the land in question in order to compel…”
Giltner v. Ivers, 954 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind. Code § 32-17-4-1 . The trial court makes a preliminary determination whether the land should be sold or partitioned.”
Mayfair Inv. Corp. v. Bryant, 922 N.E.2d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Ind.Code § 32-17-4-1 (2004). Ind.Code § 32-17-4-4(d) provides that: If: (1) upon trial of any issue; (2) upon default; or (3) by confession or consent of parties; the court determines that the land for which partition is demanded cannot be divided without damage to the owners,…”
Ronald A. Schwartz v. Shanna L. Wyatt (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “]” Ind. Code § 32-17-4-1 (a)(1)(A). Schwartz argues that Wyatt’s “true position is that of a mortgagee rather than either type of tenant” and that, “[p]er the terms of the statute, Wyatt is not entitled to seek partition of the property at issue.”
Daniel N. Boggs v. Brenda Williams (Ind. Ct. App. 2026). “ank (“First Federal,” and Boggs and First Federal, together, “Respondents”) alleging that she “is the owner and has a right to possession as [a] joint tenant[] with rights of survivorship in certain real estate located in Huntington, Indiana,” that “Boggs is currently residing…”
Stephen W. Marvel & Debria Marvel v. Jason Althoff, Erin Althoff & Gene O. Dorsey (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Ind. Code § 32-17-4-1 (emphasis added). (a) A person described in section 1(a) of this chapter may file a petition to compel partition in the circuit court or court having probate jurisdiction of the county in which the land or any part of the land is located.”
Stephen Levendoski, Karen Levendoski, & Kathleen (Jensema) Gross v. Stanley Stevens (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “Ind. Code § 32-17-4-1 (a)(1)(A). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-360 | June 26, 2018 Page 16 of 16”
Ginger Hallett (nee Louder) v. Jill E. Newlin, Gregory N. Kinworthy, & Robert C. Kinworthy, II (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “See Ind. Code § 32-17-4-1 (a) (providing that tenants in common may compel partition).”
Keller v. Keller, 878 N.E.2d 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “In such cases, Indiana Code § 32-17-4-12(a) gives the trial court discretion to “order the whole or any part of the land to be sold at public or private sale on terms and conditions prescribed by the court.”
Warren David Berglund v. Victoria L. Schutzius (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “Schutzius alleged that she and Berglund were the owners, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, of the Melchoir Property, that the Melchoir Property required partition pursuant to Ind. Code § 32-17-4-1 , and that Berglund’s control of and refusal to return her property…”
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.