Appellants argue the district court erred in making partition without appointing referees. Here, it was not necessary to appoint referees because the property has clearly defined undisputed property lines and both parties agreed that it was not appropriate to break up parcels 1 and 2. In addition, referees were not needed because the determination as to the amount of owelty is for the court, not referees. Finally, because expert testimony was offered and relied on by the district court in making its findings as to the value of the land, we reject appellants' contention that an additional hearing was needed. Appellants argue the district court erred in not considering their capital gains tax liability as a result of the partition and owelty.
Appellants contend the partition statutes require the court to consider such tax consequences.
The construction of a statute is clearly a question of law and thus fully reviewable by an appellate court. Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Bd. We conclude appellants' reliance on Aaron is misplaced. First, the laws and policy governing property distribution in a marriage dissolution are not controlling in a statutory action for the partition of real estate. Second, although appellants seek relief from their immediate tax consequences, when and if respondents or their heirs sell parcels 1 and 2, they will likely face capital gains tax consequences.