105.210 When
and how partition prevented.
(1) If the court finds that the property can neither be partitioned nor sold
without great prejudice to the owners, the court may receive evidence as to the
value of the respective interests, fix the value thereof, and make an order
permitting an owner to borrow money upon the property with which to pay off the
interest, as so fixed, of another owner. Subject to subsection (2) of this
section, an owner whose interest in the property is to be satisfied shall be
fully discharged by proof of payment filed with the court of the amount fixed
by the court as the value of that owner’s interest. A discharged owner shall
have no further interest in or claim upon the property.
(2) A court may
not order the discharge of an interest of a public body in real property
without the consent of the governing body of the public body. [Amended by 2001
c.606 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1956–2004 · leading case:
Fike v. Sharer, 571 P.2d 1252 (Or. 1977).
Fike v. Sharer, 571 P.2d 1252 (Or. 1977).
· cites it 6× “” A third alternative to an order for partition or public sale is authorized by ORS 105.210: "If the court finds that the property can neither be partitioned nor sold without great prejudice to the owners, the court may receive evidence as to the value of the respective…”
Maupin v. Opie, 964 P.2d 1117 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 12× “” and in ORS 105.210, which provides, in part: “If the court finds that the property can neither be partitioned nor sold without great prejudice to the owners, the court may receive evidence as to the value of the respective interests, fix the value thereof, and make an order…”
Doan v. Doan, 302 P.2d 565 (Or. 1956).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff’s contention comes simply to this: that neither the pleadings nor the evidence supports the court’s resort to the alternative remedy under the partition statute authorized by ORS 105.210, which reads: “If the court finds that the property can neither be partitioned…”
United Bank v. Gardos, 722 P.2d 1261 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“1 Gardos next claims that the court erred in requiring a public instead of a private sale of the property.”
Jones v. Jones, 95 P.3d 1135 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “) Setting a value, as of the date of the filing of the lawsuit below, on each specific portion of the ranch property as described in the will of Edna Jones as required by ORS 105.210; and 3.) Allowing Defendant Edward Jones a reasonable opportunity to exercise his possessory…”
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.