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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6515 (2026)

Parcel of greater value than share

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When any parcel of the estate to be divided is of greater value than either party's share and cannot be divided without great inconvenience, it may be assigned to one party by his paying the sum of money awarded to the parties who have less than their shares, but the report shall not be accepted until the sums so awarded are paid or secured to the satisfaction of the parties entitled thereto.  
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 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Ackerman v. Hojnowski, 2002 ME 147 (Me. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ackerman v. Hojnowski, 2002 ME 147 (Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “” Ackerman contends that the court abused its discretion by failing to give him an opportunity to buy out Ho-jnowski’s interest in the Castine property not conditioned upon Hojnowski’s agreement to the terms of the sale.”
Libby v. Lorrain, 430 A.2d 37 (Me. 1981). “26 at 112-13, and our partition statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 6515, permit the Superior *40 Court to order a partition in that manner.”
Ballard v. Dornic, 140 A.3d 1147 (D.C. 2016). “1981), involved application of a Maine statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 6515 (1980), that explicitly authorizes a court to "assign the property to be partitioned to one party and require that party to pay a sum of money to compensate another party for his or her share in the property.”
FTR Farms v. Rist Farm, 305 Neb. 708 (Neb. 2020). “5/17-105 (2018); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 6515 (2020); Mass.”
Scheetz v. Hartman, 572 A.2d 140 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “Although 14 M.R.S.A. § 6515 allows for the alternative of a buy-out, it speaks in terms of that option being in the discretion of the court, depending upon the circumstances, rather than its being mandatory.”
Leahy v. McAnespie (Me. Super. Ct 2024). “To meet this difficulty, the statutes provide for a prompt division of their respective interests.") The court sees no reason why the same principle should not apply to an equitable partition.”
McClure v. Lowell (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “Although the Defendant opposes this plan, the court finds that it is the most fair and equitable alternative available. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that the property located at 30 Robbins Land in Rome, Maine, being Lot 45 on Map 27, and more fully described in a deed…”
Decourcey v. Simpson (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “14 MRSA § 6515; Hutz v. Alden, 2011 ME 27, 113 .”
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.