Berg v. Kremers

12 Citing cases

  1. ELI v. ELI

    1997 S.D. 1 (S.D. 1997)   Cited 8 times

    Id.; Nelson v. Hendricks, 74 S.D. 441, 54 N.W.2d 324, 324 (1952). Accord Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 68 N.W.2d 376 (1955); Trowbridge v. Donner, 152 Neb. 206, 40 N.W.2d 655 (1950); Berg v. Kremers, 181 N.W.2d 730 (N.D. 1970); White v. Tillotson, 256 Wis. 574, 42 N.W.2d 283 (1950). [¶ 10] When applying the above definition, it is also necessary to heed the following policy considerations.

  2. Nelson v. Nelson

    2018 N.D. 212 (N.D. 2018)   Cited 5 times

    A trial court’s determination of the proper division of property or proceeds between the parties and the form of relief granted will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has abused its discretion. Miller v. Miller , supra , 564 P.2d at 527-528 ; see Berg v. Kremers , 181 N.W.2d 730, 731 Syll. ¶ 4 (N.D. 1970)."

  3. Beach Railport, LLC v. Michels

    2017 N.D. 240 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    They also argue no basis existed to allocate Beach Railport's investment burden on the Michels and the parties were not "equally favored" in the partition decision, contending a cotenant may not charge another cotenant for improvements to shared property, unless such improvements are made with the other cotenant's consent or are "necessary, useful, substantial, and permanent, enhancing the value of the estate." Gjerstadengen v. Hartzell, 9 N.D. 268, 277, 83 N.W. 230, 233 (1900) ; see also Berg v. Kremers, 181 N.W.2d 730, 736-37 (N.D. 1970) ; but see McKechnie v. Berg, 2003 ND 136, ¶ 16, 667 N.W.2d 628 ("In a partition action, a cotenant may be granted an allowance for the value of substantial, necessary, and permanent improvements which enhance the property's value."). [¶ 30] Because we are reversing and remanding this case, we do not address these issues but rather permit the district court to consider the Michels' arguments in the further proceedings on remand, which may render the issues moot after the evidentiary hearing.

  4. Gartner v. Temple

    2014 S.D. 74 (S.D. 2014)   Cited 43 times

    ”Schnell, 346 N.W.2d at 716 (quoting Berg v. Kremers, 181 N.W.2d 730, 733 (N.D.1970)). Thus, the effect of partition in kind “must be weighed against the effect of a sale of the land as a unit and the effect of a sale of the land in parcels.”

  5. Schmidt v. Wittinger

    2004 N.D. 189 (N.D. 2004)   Cited 5 times

    Great prejudice exists when the value of the share of each in case of a partition would be materially less than the share of the money equivalent that each could probably obtain from the whole. Id.; see also Berg v. Kremers, 181 N.W.2d 730, 733 (N.D. 1970). [¶ 8] On the request for a partition sale of the property, the trial court made the following relevant findings of fact:

  6. Kim McKechnie v. Brad N. Berg

    2003 N.D. 136 (N.D. 2003)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that evidence of economic and noneconomic fault are proper considerations when dividing marital property

    [¶ 16] In a partition action, a cotenant may be granted an allowance for the value of substantial, necessary, and permanent improvements which enhance the property's value. Green, 482 N.W.2d at 849 n. 4; Berg v. Kremers, 181 N.W.2d 730, 736 (N.D. 1970). Compensation for inequality in the rights and interests of the parties is addressed under N.D.C.C. § 32-16-41:

  7. Ashley v. Baker

    867 P.2d 792 (Alaska 1994)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that deed granting a "1/2 interest in lot 13 . . . specifically the 1 acre lot with apt C located on it" was open to three possible interpretations and therefore ambiguous

    " For this reason, we hold that "great prejudice" is a question of fact to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. This holding is amply supported by authority from other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Beebout v. Beebout, 447 N.W.2d 465, 467 (Minn.App. 1989); Frank DeHaan, Inc. v. Gallatin-Madison Ranch Co., 250 Mont. 304, 820 P.2d 423, 426 (1991); Berg v. Kremers, 181 N.W.2d 730, 734 (N.D. 1970); Gillmor v. Gillmor, 657 P.2d 736, 739 (Utah 1982). As Ashley argues in his brief, the superior court made no findings regarding the economic prejudice that would result from a partition in kind.

  8. Green v. Gustafson

    482 N.W.2d 842 (N.D. 1992)   Cited 22 times
    Stating a grantor cannot convey a greater interest in the property than the grantor has

    In a partition action, a co-tenant may be granted an allowance for the value of substantial, necessary, and permanent improvements which enhance the property's value. E.g., Berg v. Kremers, 181 N.W.2d 730, 736 (N.D. 1970); Gjerstadengen v. Hartzell, 9 N.D. 268, 83 N.W. 230, 233 (1900). In the event partition is sought, it will be for the trial court to determine the extent of the allowance to the Gustafsons for the improvements, keeping in mind that partition is an equitable remedy governed by equitable principles.

  9. Schnell v. Schnell

    346 N.W.2d 713 (N.D. 1984)   Cited 26 times
    Finding sentimental attachment to land by co-owner was sufficient to prevent forced sale by other co-owner

    Current statutory law provides that a partition is a matter of right when several cotenants are in possession of real property as tenants in common. North Dakota Century Code § 32-16-01; Berg v. Kremers, 181 N.W.2d 730, 732 (N.D. 1970). Section 32-16-01 provides:

  10. Eastman v. Nelson

    319 N.W.2d 134 (N.D. 1982)   Cited 8 times

    A trial court's determination of the proper division of property or proceeds between the parties and the form of relief granted will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has abused its discretion. Miller v. Miller, supra, 564 P.2d at 527-528; see Berg v. Kremers, 181 N.W.2d 730, 731 Syll. ¶ 4 (N.D. 1970). In Fettig v. Fettig, 277 N.W.2d 278, 280 (N.D. 1979), we discussed the general rule as to contribution obligations between cotenants: