Supreme Court of Connecticut
436 A.2d 27 (1980)
The Delfinos (plaintiffs) and Vealencis (defendant) owned a plot of land as tenants in common. The Delfinos owned an undivided 99/144 interest and Vealencis owned an undivided 45/144 interest. The Delfinos did not have actual possession of the property. Vealencis lived on a portion of the land and from there operated a trash removal business, although no trash was actually stored on the premises. The Delfinos brought an action asking the court to order a partition by sale, with the proceeds being distributed to the parties according to each party’s interest in the land. Vealencis moved for a partition in kind. The trial court, after a hearing, held that a partition in kind was not practical and would result in “material injury” to the parties, and that it would be more equitable to order the partition by sale. Vealencis appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Healey, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 239,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.