A Manhattan judge has treated the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of a separated same-sex couple’s home more like a divorce than a contract dispute, ordering an equitable distribution of the funds rather than the presumed 50-50 split for tenants in common.

“It is well-settled that tenants in common share a rebuttable presumption that each holds an equal undivided one-half interest in the subject premises,” Supreme Court Justice Rosalyn Richter wrote in C.Y. v. H.C., 102658/06. “However, ‘partition is an equitable remedy in nature and Supreme Court has the authority to adjust the rights of the parties so each receives his or her proper share of the property and its benefits,’” she concluded, citing Hunt v. Hunt, 13 AD3d 1041.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]