Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-83 (2026)

Allotment to one or more parties, or sale, in lieu of partition

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. If at least one party to a partition action petitions the court for allotment or for a partition sale, the court may order allotment pursuant to this section or, if the court determines allotment is not practicable, a sale pursuant to § 8.01-83.1.

B. Before a court is authorized to allot or sell an undivided interest in a partition action, it shall first determine that partition in kind cannot be practicably made. When the subject land is not susceptible to a practicable division in kind, the court shall next consider an allotment of the entire subject property to any one or more of the parties who will accept it for a price equal to the value determined pursuant to § 8.01-81.1, and pay therefor to the other parties such sums of money as their interest therein may entitle them to receive, notwithstanding that any of those entitled may be a person with a disability. If a purchaser is entitled to a share of the proceeds of the sale, the purchaser is entitled to a credit against the price in an amount equal to the purchaser's share of the proceeds. The court shall make distribution of the proceeds of the allotment according to the respective rights of those entitled, taking care, when there are creditors of any deceased person who was a tenant in common, joint tenant, or coparcener, to have the proceeds of such deceased person's part applied according to the rights of such creditors.

1. When the court considers allotment, it shall require the party or parties seeking allotment to notify all of the other parties (i) that the property may be allotted to any one or more of them who is willing to accept it and (ii) of the required price.

2. In the event that multiple parties seek allotment and disputes arise concerning such allotment, the court shall consider the following in making such allotment:

a. Evidence of the collective duration of ownership or possession of the property by a party and one or more predecessors in title or predecessors in possession to the party who are or were related to the party or each other;

b. A party's sentimental attachment to the property, including any attachment arising because the property has ancestral or other unique or special value to the party;

c. The lawful use being made of the property by a party and the degree to which the party would be harmed if the party could not continue the same use of the property;

d. The degree to which the parties have contributed their pro rata share of the property taxes, insurance, and other expenses associated with maintaining ownership of the property or have contributed to the physical improvement, maintenance, or upkeep of the property; and

e. Any other relevant factor.

The court shall not consider any one of the preceding factors to be dispositive without weighing the totality of all relevant factors and circumstances.

3. After the court determines which party or parties will participate in the allotment, the court shall notify all the parties of its decision and of the amount each party is to pay or receive for its allotted share pursuant to either this subsection or subsection C. The court shall set a date, not sooner than 60 days after notification to the parties, by which each party allotted a share of the property must pay the amount due to the court. If any party allocated a share fails to pay the amount due by the required date the court shall order a sale of the entire subject property pursuant to § 8.01-83.1, unless the court determines, based on the factors in this subsection, that it will allow another party or parties to acquire such share by paying for such share within a reasonable period of time set by the court.

C. If the court determines that such allotment of the entire subject is not practicable or is not equitable, and if the interest of those who are entitled to the subject, or its proceeds, will be promoted by a sale of the entire subject, or allotment of part and sale of the residue, the court, notwithstanding any of those entitled may be a person under a disability, may order such sale, or an allotment pursuant to subsection B of a part thereof to any one or more of the parties who will accept it and pay therefor to the other parties such sums of money as their interest therein may entitle them to, and a sale of the residue. The price for the part of the property allotted to one or more parties shall be the fair market value of such part as determined by the court unless all the parties agree to a value for the part, which the court shall adopt. The sale of the residue shall be conducted pursuant to § 8.01-83.1. The court shall make distribution of the proceeds of the allotment and sale of the residue, according to the respective rights of those entitled, taking care, when there are creditors of any deceased person who was a tenant in common, joint tenant, or coparcener, to have the proceeds of such deceased person's part applied according to the rights of such creditors.

D. If the court determines neither allotment of the entire subject property nor of a part of the subject property is practicable or equitable, it shall order a sale pursuant to § 8.01-83.1.

Code 1950, § 8-692; 1950, p. 467; 1977, c. 617; 2020, cc. 115, 193.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Marion v. Marion, 401 S.E.2d 432 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marion v. Marion, 401 S.E.2d 432 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “the court had the power to allot real property to one of the parties or to order a sale thereof only after determining that the property could not be conveniently partitioned in kind.”

Morris v. Morris, 349 S.E.2d 661 (Va. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “3 does not alter the legal interest an owner has in jointly owned property, partition permitted under Code § 20-107.3 is no different than that permitted prior to the adoption of Code § 20-107.”

Gaynor v. Hird, 400 S.E.2d 788 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “By means of the partition statute, the circuit judge in a divorce proceeding or in an independent suit had the power to allot real property to one of the parties or to order a sale of real property only after first making a *592 judicial determination that partition in kind…”

Marie Holt Hart v. James P. Hart, III, 497 S.E.2d 496 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-83 required trial courts, when partitioning realty, to partition the property in kind, except when “partition cannot conveniently be made, [in which case] the entire subject may be allotted to any one or more of the parties who will accept, and pay therefor to the…”

Sensabaugh v. Sensabaugh, 349 S.E.2d 141 (Va. 1986). · cites it 4× “Code § 8.01-83, in effect at the time of the proceedings below, reads in pertinent part as follows: in any case in which partition cannot be conveniently made, if the interest of those who are entitled to the subject, or its proceeds, will be promoted by a sale of the entire…”

Jones v. Jones, 457 S.E.2d 365 (Va. 1995). · cites it 4× “Code §§ 8.01-83, 8.01-68. Since former Code § 64.”

Ark Land Co. v. Harper, 599 S.E.2d 754 (W. Va. 2004). · cites it 2× “12, § 5174 (Lexis 2002); Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-83 (Lexis 2000); Wash.”

Smith v. Woodlawn Const. Co., Inc., 368 S.E.2d 699 (Va. 1988). · cites it 2× “” Code § 8.01-83. The co-owners urging a partition by sale or an allotment must first prove that partition in kind could not be conveniently made.”

Clayberg v. Clayberg, 355 S.E.2d 902 (Va. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “01-83 provides: When partition cannot be conveniently made, the entire subject may be allotted to any one or more of the parties who will accept it and pay therefor to the other parties such sums of money as their interest therein may entitle them to; or in any case in which…”

Richmond v. Hall, 466 S.E.2d 103 (Va. 1996). · cites it 2× “1 In pertinent part, Code § 8.01-83 provides: When partition cannot be conveniently made, the entire subject may be allotted to any one or more of the parties who will accept it and pay therefor to the other parties such sums of money as their interest therein may entitle them…”

Quillen v. Tull, 312 S.E.2d 278 (Va. 1984). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-83 specifically authorizes the court, where partition in kind cannot be conveniently made, to allot the property to any one or more of the parties in interest who will pay such sums as the interest of the others may entitle them to receive.”

Orgain v. Butler, 496 S.E.2d 433 (Va. 1998). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-83; Shannon v. Hall, 235 Va. 360, 364 , 368 S.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-83(B)(2) — 1 case

Jon F. Mains, Tr./Ex'r for the Trust/Est. of L. Randolph Williams v. John Birge (Va. Ct. App. 2025).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-83(B)(2)(d) — 1 case

Jon F. Mains, Tr./Ex'r for the Trust/Est. of L. Randolph Williams v. John Birge (Va. Ct. App. 2025).

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.