Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6501 (2026)

Civil action

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Persons seized or having a right of entry into real estate in fee simple or for life, as tenants in common or joint tenants, may be compelled to divide the same by a civil action for partition.  
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: Boyer v. Boyer, 1999 ME 128 (Me. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Boyer v. Boyer, 1999 ME 128 (Me. 1999). · cites it 4× “*275 [¶ 3] Because Constance Boyer, who used the Belgrade property, could not afford to maintain it and pay the taxes, she filed a complaint in the District Court requesting that the District Court partition the property pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 6501, 6502 (1980 & Supp.1998).”
Frederick B. Lincoln v. Harold Burbank II, 2016 ME 138 (Me. 2016). “[¶ 57] Burbank argues that the Co-owners lacked standing because their counter-claim for partition was brought pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 6501 (2015), which, he argues, does not authorize partition by sale.”
Tozier v. Tozier, 437 A.2d 645 (Me. 1981). “2d 667, 669-70 (1980); a petition to partition, 14 M.R.S.A. § 6501; see Hoadley v. Wheelwright, 131 Me.”
Murphy v. Daley, 582 A.2d 1212 (Me. 1990). “Equitable partition is a more flexible procedure than a civil action for partition, 14 M.R.S.A. § 6501 (1980), and may be carried out by physically dividing the property in a sale or by other means if physical division would materially injure the rights of the parties.”
Duffy v. MacIag, 431 A.2d 1233 (R.I. 1981). “1952); see Freeman, supra, § 446 at 593, 2 Story, Equity Jurisprudence § 884 at 261 (14th ed.”
Aubuchon v. O'Connor (Me. Super. Ct 2019). · cites it 2× “1 The Defendant (Carina O'Connor f/k/a Aubuchon) promptly answered and counterclaimed for partition in accordance with 14 M.R.S. § 6501 (statutory partition) (Count 1) 2 and 14 M.”
Palanza v. Lufkin (Me. Super. Ct 2001). · cites it 3× “14 M.R.S.A. §§ 6501, 6051(7) and (13) (1980).”
Goody v. Thompson (Me. Super. Ct 2023). “Lorraine, 430 A.2d 37, 39 (Me. 1981) emphasis added.”
Leahy v. McAnespie (Me. Super. Ct 2024). “Further, the court finds that physical division of the property is not a viable option and the current value of the property is $450,000.”
Vinal v. Mayo (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “Even though Plaintiff did not properly respond in the format required by M.R. Civ. P. 56, Plaintiffs response contests Defendant's ownership interest in the property.”
Tompkins v. Buhro (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “Maine State Housing Authority takes no position on the case, provided its first position security interest is recognized.”
Connor v. Mazeika (Me. Super. Ct 2023). “Because the court decides that partition by sale is the best available remedy given these facts, the court need not decide the details of the parties’ relationship.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.