Opinion ID: 2080449
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Should the Partition Action be Dismissed?

Text: Plaintiff's partition action, filed in equity, was based on an alleged agreement for a joint venture in the construction of the rural Hartford home. In disposing of the other equitable issues, trial court found that plaintiff did not join defendant in the financial responsibility for the construction cost of the project; there was no substantial facts in the record to show any agreement to share in the costs and expenses of purchasing and constructing the residence. Departing from the allegations in her petition, plaintiff argues on appeal that she is entitled to partition because the evidence discloses she is entitled to a constructive or resulting trust. We believe trial court's findings and our discussion in division II preclude relief for plaintiff on the theory of partition. Inadvertently, trial court did not dispose of this issue, although the cases had been consolidated for trial by the order of a different judge. The consolidated cases must therefore be remanded so that the district court may dismiss the partition action. We have examined the other arguments advanced by plaintiff in this appeal and find them without merit. The rulings appealed from are affirmed and the combined cases are remanded for the disposition directed in division III. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.