The fact that the result of the partitioning may have impacts on the parties' use and ownership of the jointly owned property does not preclude a separate partitioning proceeding.
In a dissolution judgment entered in 1973, the parties were given an undivided interest as tenants in common of 300 shares of stock in Hermiston Broadcasting Company. Husband was given the right to vote the stock and to exercise other incidents of management over it. The husband had argued in the trial court that the trial court had no power to modify the property division provisions of the dissolution judgment. Wife brought this action to partition the shares.
Is a person precluded from ever seeking a partitioning of real or personal property included in a property distribution, even if the property division provisions of a dissolution judgment cannot be modified?
The fact that the result of the partitioning might have impacts on the parties' use and ownership of the jointly owned property did not preclude a separate partitioning proceeding. The court found that the fact that a partitioning of the stock might affect the husband's voting and management rights did not preclude a partitioning of the stock. The court reversed and concluded that whether a partition was warranted and under what conditions, including whether the husband should be compensated for the impact on his voting and management rights, were matters for the trial court to determine in the partitioning proceeding.