Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 32-17-4-4 (2026)

Repealed

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 32-4-5-4.]

As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.2. Repealed by P.L.41-2012, SEC.5.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2005–2011 · leading case: Gibbs v. Kashak, 883 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gibbs v. Kashak, 883 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “As both Ind.Code § 32-17-4-4(d) and Pavy use discretionary language, we do not believe Culley limits the trial court’s discretion.”

Buck v. Grube, 833 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “32-4-5-4 [now Ind.Code § 32-17-4-4] to make the determination.”

Giltner v. Ivers, 954 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “Ind. Code § 32-17-4-4 . When a court enters an interlocutory judgment of partition, the court appoints three commissioners to determine how the land should be divided.”

Mayfair Inv. Corp. v. Bryant, 922 N.E.2d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “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, the court may order the whole…”

— Ind. Code § 32-17-4-4(d) — 3 cases

Gibbs v. Kashak, 883 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “As both Ind.Code § 32-17-4-4(d) and Pavy use discretionary language, we do not believe Culley limits the trial court’s discretion.”

Buck v. Grube, 833 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “32-4-5-4 [now Ind.Code § 32-17-4-4] to make the determination.”

Mayfair Inv. Corp. v. Bryant, 922 N.E.2d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “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, the court may order the whole…”

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.