- 31 -
not a majority interest, his coowner’s interest was equal, and so
neither had a majority or minority. As a result, neither had
control, and both were equal. Hulberg has treated the
coownership of real property here as though the coowners were in
a partnership relationship, thereby elevating the question of
control. It does not appear that the coowners operated a
business (farming or otherwise) as partners, and, accordingly,
control is less relevant. This is a common interest in undivided
and unimproved property, and the question to consider is the
feasability of dividing the property in the case of disagreement
about its use. In that regard, costs of partition or other legal
controversy, along with other factors, are considerations
rationally involved in the valuing of an asset. See Estate of
Bonner v. United States, 84 F.3d 196, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
Hulberg opined that partition was feasible under California
law, but that the “ability to partition the property would not
substantially decrease the discount presented by partnership
sales, as such actions could involve a great deal of expense and
delay prior to the liquidation of [a] co-tenancy interest.” We
cannot accept Hulberg’s premise as a universal principle because
it ignores economies of scale and the relative value of the
property. For example, assuming a legal cost for partition of
$200,000,9 a $680,000 parcel (as Hulberg opined) might fit the
9 Two hundred thousand dollars, assuming a $200 hourly legal
(continued...)
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011