Nonetheless, the method of owelty should be used when an equal division cannot be had without great prejudice to the owners and a sale is likewise disadvantageous. Here, the parties do not dispute the district court's finding that the four parcels of land cannot be divided equally without impairing the value of the property. Further, the evidence in the record supports the district court's finding that a sale would be prejudicial to respondents. Respondents' residence is located on parcels 1 and 2 and ownership of parcels 1 and 2 by appellants would, due to the parties' inability to cooperate with each other, interfere with respondents' use of their residence. In light of these findings, we conclude the district court did not err in determining that partition in kind with owelty is the proper method to effect an equitable and fair division of the property.
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.