Court Opinion

ID: 9536592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:03:05.653613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:48.531036
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
RICHARDSON, C J.
I respectfully dissent. The statutes involved provide in pertinent part:
When two or more persons hold or are in possession of real property as joint tenants or as tenants in common, in which one or more of them have an estate in fee, or a life estate in possession, any one or more of such persons may bring an action in the circuit court of the circuit in which the property or some part thereof is situated, for a partition of the property, according to the respective rights of the parties interested therein, and for a sale of the same or a part thereof, if it appears that a partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners. The several circuit courts shall have power, in any action for partition, to proceed according to the usual practice of courts of equity in cases of partition, and according to this chapter in enlargement thereof. (Emphasis added.) HRS Section 668-1 (Supp. 1974).
The court shall have power: *177HRS Section 668-7(6) (Supp. 1974) empowers the trial court to partition subject property by judicial sale where actual division is found to be impracticable or greatly prejudicial to the interested parties.
*176To divide and allot portions of the premises to some or all of the parties and order a sale of the remainder, or to sell the whole, where for any reason partition in kind would be impracticable in whole or in part or be greatly prejudicial to the parties interested, and by judgment or judgments to invest the purchaser or purchasers with title to any property sold, and use the proceeds to equalize the general partition . . . (Emphasis added.) HRS Section 668-7(6) (Supp. 1974).
*177At plaintiffs’ request1 and pursuant to HRS Section 668-13 (Supp. 1974) the trial court appointed a Commissioner in partition:
[Tjo investigate and report to the Court as to the feasibility and practicality of the partition of the property described in the Complaint filed herein for a (1) one-ninth (l/9th) interest in favor of Antone S. Teixeira, and a (2) eighth-ninth (8/9th) [sic] interest in favor of a proposed purchaser or in any other division and to prepare a plan for such division into lots or as to the non-feasibility and impracticality of any physical partition of said property.2
In accordance with his instructions, the Commissioner conducted the said investigation and concluded that partition in kind of the Teixeira estate into a one-ninth (l/9th) and an eight-ninths (8/9ths) division was feasible. The report reads as follows:
3. Based upon my investigation and experience as a licensed surveyor in the State of Hawaii, it is both feasible and practical to partition in kind the Property into two separate parcels — one parcel would contain 19,814 square feet and the other parcel would contain 158,511 square feet. It is a logical partition in kind because defendants Antone S. Teixeira and Marjory Ann Teixeira own a parcel of land contiguous to the Property, which the new subdivided 19,814 square feet parcel can be consolidated into without creating an isolated parcel of land. (Emphasis added.) (Record, at 103.)
The Commissioner then concluded by recommending partition in kind creating Parcel A as shown on Exhibit A (Record, at 104) and the eight-ninths (8/9ths) portion.
*178The partition statute allows partition by judicial sale where actual division is shown to be impracticable or greatly prejudicial to the interested parties.3 Absent a showing of great prejudice to the owners resulting from an actual division of the property, it must then be determined if such division is impracticable. In so ascertaining whether partition in kind is impracticable, I believe the focus should be placed on whether physical division of the subject property is feasible and practical, that is, whether the property is susceptible of partition in kind. If such actual division is indeed found to be practicable, as in the case at bar where the Commissioner so recommended, then HRS Section 668-7(6) (Supp. 1974) precludes the trial court from ordering a judicial sale, but rather authorizes the court to effect partition in kind of the realty.
In the instant case the Commissioner’s finding that partition in kind was feasible and practical4 offered evidence of practicability sufficient to obviate the necessity of partition by judicial sale. I therefore conclude that the trial court erred in ordering partition by sale in light of the Commissioner’s Report and in the absence of any showing of great prejudice to the owners. I would thus reverse.
Given the foregoing I deem it appropriate to comment on the action for partition — a remedy which is particularly significant in Hawaii where the retention of land ownership in one family line is an important interest worthy of preservation and diligent protection.
At common law the action for partition of land was designed to allow co-tenants to divide land held jointly.5 The then existing law only allowed a division in kind, i.e., an actual division of the property. 4A Powell, Real Property, § 612 at 650. (Hereinafter cited as Powell.)More recently statutes have been enacted in almost every jurisdiction to comprehensively deal with the partition remedy. These statutes established the power and jurisdiction of a court to effect *179partition by a sale of the property with a division of the proceeds where circumstances are such that a division in kind would be injurious or impractical. Powell, § 609 at 636 and cases cited therein. However, even given the various modifications of the orginal remedy, the purpose of partition has remained the same, that is:
. . . [T]o provide a means by which people, finding themselves in an unwanted common ownership, can free themselves from the relationships incidental to such common ownership. Powell, § 609 at 636.
Notwithstanding the statutory provisions establishing partition by judicial sale, it is often said that “the law favors partition in kind.” 4 Thompson on Real Property, § 1828, at 312 (1961 repl.) and cases cited therein. See also Powell, § 612 at 650.
It is thus the general rule that:
... As between a partition in kind or sale of land for division, the courts will favor a partition in kind, since this does not disturb the existing form of inheritance or compel a person to sell his property against his will, which, it has been said, should not be done except in cases of imperious necessity. Trowbridge v. Donner, 152 Neb. 206, 213, 40 N.W.2d 655, 660 (1950).
It is especially important to restate this preference for partition in kind so that in Hawaii we preserve the right of the individual joint tenant or tenant in common to hold onto his parcel of land where he opposes any forced sale of such property. Indeed, there are interests other than financial expediency which I recognize as essential to our Hawaiian way of life. Foremost is the individual’s right to retain ancestral land in order to perpetuate the concept of the family homestead. Such right is derived from our proud cultural heritage wherein it was believed that:
. . . [T]he one guarantee of survival [was] land . . . [which was] in short supply either because of the density of population or because of the large holdings of exploiting gentry landholders ....
. . . Because peasants depend for their survival on specific plots of land, ownership is their goal and once *180land is owned it must be preserved and passed on intact to the children. All this makes for the great emphasis on the survival of the particular family line which owns the particular plot of land. Thus peasants stress the unity and continuity of the family — large number of children, particularly sons who will work the plots of land, inherit them, and perhaps add to them. (Emphasis supplied.) B. Hormann, Hawaii’s People in Transition 98, in ASPECTS OF HAWAIIAN LIFE AND ENVIRONMENT: COMMENTARIES ON SIGNIFICANT HAWAIIAN TOPICS BY FIFTEEN RECOGNIZED AUTHORITIES 93 (1971). Published in 1965 as the Kamehameha Schools 75th Anniversary Lectures.
Undoubtedly there will be circumstances which justify the invocation of partition by judicial sale under HRS §§ 668-1 and 668-7(6) (Supp. 1974). In the situation where the statutory grounds are met the preference for actual division of property must yield to partition by judicial sale.
But let us recognize that such preference for partition in kind should not be so easily disregarded. “Mindful of our Hawaiian heritage,”6 we must not lose sight of the cultural traditions which attach fundamental importance to keeping ancestral land in a particular family line.

 Record; pp. 99-100.

 Record, at 100, “ORDER FOR COMMISSIONER TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT TO THE COURT RE: FEASIBILITY OF PARTITION OF PROPERTY.”

 HRS Section 668-7(6) (Supp. 1974).

 Record, at 103, COMMISSIONER’S REPORT.

 See generally 1967 WIS. L. REV. 988.

 Hawaii Constitution, Preamble.