You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PURCHASED 75% OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE HEIRS OF THE...
, ,

PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PURCHASED 75% OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE HEIRS OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER, SOUGHT PARTITION AND SALE; DEFENDANT, WHOSE MOTHER HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, OWNED THE REMAINING 25%; UNDER THE UNIFORM PARTITION OF HEIRS PROPERTY ACT (UPHPA), PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT IN GOOD FAITH, BUT DID NOT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, determined that plaintiff, who had purchased 75% of a piece of real property from the heirs of the original owner, did not negotiate in good faith in seeking a judgment directing the partition and sale of the property. The Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA) (RPAPL 993) applies to this situation, where defendant, an heir of the original owner, holds the remaining 25% of the property. The UPHPA required that plaintiff negotiate a sale price for its share of the property and/or a purchase price for defendant’s share of the property in good faith. Both Supreme Court and the Second Department determined plaintiff did not negotiate in good faith and therefore was not entitled to the partition and sale:

Pursuant to RPAPL 993, property that qualifies as “heirs property” within the meaning of RPAPL 993(2)(e) is subject to the mandates of the UPHPA, which supersedes the general partition statutes, including RPAPL 901 … .

Following the commencement of a partition action involving “heirs property,” RPAPL 993(5)(a) mandates that the matter shall proceed to a settlement conference, “for the purpose of holding settlement discussions, pertaining to the relative rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the subject property” … . …

RPAPL 993(5)(e) further requires that “[b]oth the plaintiff[ ] and defendant[ ] shall negotiate in good faith [during the UPHPA mandated settlement conferences] to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.” * * *

​… [A]s the defendant contends, the equitable factors set forth in RPAPL 993(9)(a) strongly favored her position that she was primarily interested in reaching an agreement that would allow her to maintain her ownership interest in the property. … [T]he defendant’s mother had purchased the property in 1970, approximately 50 years before the plaintiff acquired its interest in the property and commenced this action. … [T]he defendant had grown up in the property, her children had grown up there, and her son still lived there … . Additionally, the plaintiff, who is not a relative of either person from whom it purchased its 75% interest in the property …, allegedly purchased that interest for $136,000. Despite purchasing its interest in the property for approximately one quarter of the appraised value of that interest of $521,250, the plaintiff made a final offer to sell its interest in the property for $500,000, which would afford the plaintiff a significant profit … . Laurelton Estates, LLC v Prince, 2025 NY Slip Op 05226, Second Dept 10-1-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what the “good-faith-settlement-negotiation” requirements in the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA) are. The requirements were not met here. ​

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
“Alter Ego” of Entity Which Employed Plaintiff Protected by Worker’s Compensation Law.
Family Court Should Have Granted Father’s Motion to Vacate a Fact-Finding Order
SURROGATE’S COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE, NUNC PRO TUNC, A METHOD OF SERVICE ON AN OUT-OF-STATE PARTY ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT PRIOR COURT APPROVAL (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION DID NOT CEASE UPON MOTHER’S DEATH; MATERNAL GRANDFATHER’S PETITION SEEKING TO BE MADE THE CHILD-SUPPORT PAYEE RETROACTIVE TO MOTHER’S DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
Ambiguity Should Have Been Resolved Against the Insurer
UNLIKE THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (DRAM SHOP ACT) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A BAR WHICH SERVES A VISIBLY INTOXICATED PERSON WHO IS LATER INVOLVED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, A COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION APPLIES ONLY TO INJURIES CAUSED BY AN INTOXICATED PERSON ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY OR IN AN AREA UNDER DEFENDANT’S CONTROL AND SUPERVISION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN, THE JUDGE PROMISED TO ORDER DEFENDANT TO BE ENROLLED... THE CONFLICTING EXPERT REPORTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT...