Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 39.010 (2026)
Actions for partition of real property; partial partition
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 39.010 Actions for partition of real property; partial partition. When several persons hold and are in
possession of real property as joint tenants or as tenants in common, in which
one or more of them have an estate of inheritance, or for life or lives, or for
years, an action may be brought by one or more of such persons for a partial
partition thereof according to the respective rights of the persons interested
therein, and for a sale of such property or a part of it, if a partition cannot
be made without great prejudice to the owners or if the owners consent to a
sale. Whenever from any cause it is, in the opinion of the court, impracticable
or highly inconvenient to make a complete partition, in the first instance, among
all the parties in interest, the court may first ascertain and determine the
shares or interest respectively held by the original cotenants, and thereupon
cause a partition to be made, as if the original cotenants were the only
parties to the action and thereafter may proceed to adjudge and make partition
separately of each share or portion so ascertained and allotted as between
those claiming under the original tenant to whom the property has been set
apart, or may allow them to remain tenants in common thereof, as they may
desire.
[1911 CPA § 585; RL § 5527; NCL § 9074]—(NRS A 1985, 771)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1975–2018 · leading case: Sack v. Tomlin, 871 P.2d 298 (Nev. 1994).
Sack v. Tomlin, 871 P.2d 298 (Nev. 1994). “*215 The instant case involved the partition of real property under NRS 39.010. Cathy wanted 99% of the proceeds from the sale of the house.”
Terrible v. Terrible, 534 P.2d 919 (Nev. 1975). “The district judge, who is not the judge who entered the divorce decree, held a trial on the petition for partition and found that, although the respondent's interest was a subject for partition, it was impractical to partition the parcel, so he ordered it sold and the net…”
Howard v. Hughes, 427 P.3d 1045 (Nev. 2018). “The district court concluded that Howard and Hughes were joint tenants with equal ownership interests in the property and ordered Howard to either buy out Hughes' interest, or sell the property and equally share in the proceeds.”
Kent v. Kent, 835 P.2d 8 (Nev. 1992). “The brothers were unable to reach an agreement for the distribution of the property, and, on April 8, 1988, Kenneth brought a partition action under NRS 39.010 against Robert and Thomas. The two sides also claimed against each other for breach of fiduciary duties, mismanagement…”
Howard Vs. Hughes, 2018 NV 80 (Nev. 2018). “NRS 39.010 provides that any person holding title to real property as a joint tenant may bring an action for partition of said real property according to the rights of the persons holding title.”
Howard Vs. Hughes, 2018 NV 80 (Nev. 2018). “NRS 39.010 provides that any person holding title to real property as a joint tenant may bring an action for partition of said real property according to the rights of the persons holding title.”
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.