Opinion ID: 2088521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: decree of partition

Text: The above entitled matter came on to be heard before Mr. Justice Cochran on March 4, 1982 upon Defendant's Objections to the Master's report. After hearing oral argument and after a full review of the record and the facts, with due consideration thereof, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED 1. The Master's report is rejected in part as being clearly erroneous and not in conformance with the evidence. Findings in the Master's report not inconsistent with this Court's decision are adopted. 2. A metes and bounds partition of the property is hereby ordered. To accomplish it, Alan Easterbrooks, Civil Engineer, is hereby appointed by agreement of the parties to delineate the boundaries of the subject property and to establish a line of division between the two parcels, A and B, mandated by this Court on pages 21 through 23 of its decision, attached hereto. He shall submit his findings together with his diagram of the proposed division to this Court for approval within a reasonable time period. His fees shall be borne equally by the parties. 3. Actual partition of the property is conditional upon either: (a). the granting of a side yard distance variance by the Charlestown Zoning Board to the necessary parcel, or (b). action on the part of the owner of parcel B that will bring the parcels into conformance with the zoning ordinance, to wit: removing the addition to the main house to increase side yard distance between the parcels. To this end, application for a side lot line variance shall be made to the Charlestown Zoning Board as soon as possible and the results thereof reported to this Court. 4. Once physical division is delineated, the parties should install a well on parcel A to serve the rental properties, costs shall be borne equally by the parties. 5. Plaintiff shall receive parcel A and Defendant shall receive parcel B in said division, and all documents to accomplish transfer of respective interests shall be executed by the parties. 6. The Court concludes that there was no ouster, except as indicated below, of plaintiff by defendant from the property or the main house at any time and accordingly rejects the Master's findings as to ouster. Defendant need not account to plaintiff. 7. The Court finds the agreement made between the Plaintiff and Defendant upon their father's death has never terminated and remains in effect today. That agreement calls for defendant to collect the rents from and manage the rental properties applying plaintiff's share to her tax, insurance and maintenance responsibilities and to her share of the care and support of Mr. MacKaye. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that Defendant would retain any money in excess of the farm's expenses for her own personal use. This continuing agreement obviates any of Defendant's claims for reimbursement for maintenance work done on the property and her claim for a management fee for managing the rental properties. Accordingly, Defendant's claims for reimbursement for maintenance work done and for a management fee are denied. 8. The Court accepts the Master's finding that Defendant is entitled to a three thousand dollar payment as the unpaid balance of her five thousand dollar executrix fee. 9. The Court also accepts the Master's finding that the $22,432 insurance proceeds and joint savings account with decedent contributed to the joint checking account for payment of estate taxes, was an unconditional gift to the estate with the parties intending to be equal participants in the residual estate after all the bills had been paid. 10. The Master's finding that Plaintiff must pay her own accountant's fee is accepted by the Court. 11. The Court also denies Defendant's claim for reimbursement for the unusually large expenditure necessitated to make house number four rentable because Defendant had a duty to clear such expenditure with plaintiff prior to taking action but acted without plaintiff's consent. The Plaintiff is not entitled to an accounting for this unauthorized expense because the Defendant used her own funds to make the repairs. The decision of the Master is accepted as to Robert Saglio's claim against the estate being the sole obligation of the defendant. 12. The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an accounting from Defendant as to her one-half share of the rental money received from house number four from June, 1977 to date since Defendant deposited said sums to her own account, and said deposit constituted ouster. To this end an accountant should be hired to determine the amount, and the costs thereof to be borne equally, if the parties cannot agree on the amount. 13. The Court denies Defendant's counter claim for Plaintiff's share of the care and support of Mr. MacKaye because Plaintiff rescinded her agreement to care for him in November, 1973. 14. The Master's fee, estimated at not more than $7,500 should be borne equally by the parties. 15. No interest should be charged on any amount due from either of the parties. ENTERED as an ORDER of this Court, the 16th day of December, 1982. BY ORDER: /s/ Cochran J