2 total
Motion for leave to examine non-party and compel answers to discovery refusals dismissed.
The plaintiff moved for leave to examine a non-party, his former spouse, for discovery, and for an order compelling the defendants to answer questions refused at their discoveries.
The court dismissed the motion for leave to examine the non-party, finding that the defendants had provided a 'will say' statement that satisfied the requirement to avoid trial by surprise.
The court also dismissed the motion to compel answers to refusals, finding that the requested will was not relevant and the request for names of persons the defendants had spoken to about the litigation was overly broad.
The court ordered the partition and sale of a jointly owned property, finding the respondents' reliance on a co-ownership agreement to force an arbitrary, below-market valuation was unreasonable.
The applicants sought partition and sale of a jointly owned recreational property under the Partition Act.
The respondents opposed, arguing a co-ownership agreement governed the dispute and that the applicants acted in bad faith.
The court found the co-ownership agreement inoperable regarding fair market value and tax implications, and that the respondents were not acting reasonably or in good faith by arbitrarily determining the property's value.
The court exercised its discretion to grant the application for sale.
