Mr. Goodwin is everything you want in an attorney: professional, honest, thorough, and genuinely caring. He always explains things clearly, so I understood exactly what was happening and what to expect next. His attention to detail and persistence really stood out. Looking back, I feel lucky to have found him. He guided me through the whole process expertly, and I deeply appreciate all his hard work. Would definitely recommend him to anyone needing legal help.
Call Today:
212-233-1233
RPAPL 993: The Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act
When several family members inherit New York real estate together, any one of them can ordinarily file a partition action and force the property to be divided or sold. Before 2019, this rule was frequently used against families: an heir with a small fractional interest, or an investor who bought that interest cheaply, could push an inherited house into a court-ordered sale, often at a price well below market value. Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 993, New York’s version of the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, changes how these cases work. If the property qualifies as “heirs property,” the court must follow a special procedure: a court-supervised appraisal, a right of the other co-owners to buy out the interest of the person demanding a sale, a preference for physical division over sale and, if a sale is unavoidable, an open-market listing with a licensed broker instead of a courthouse auction.
What Problem RPAPL 993 Solves
Under RPAPL Article 9, a co-owner (tenant in common) has a nearly absolute right to partition. Historically, when land could not practicably be split, courts ordered a public auction sale. Auction sales of fractional family properties routinely produced depressed prices, and speculators built a business model around it: buy one heir’s small share, sue for partition, and force the entire property to auction. RPAPL 993 was enacted in 2019 to stop that pattern for family-owned inherited property. It does not eliminate the right to partition; a co-owner can still get their money out. It controls how that happens so the family is not stripped of the property’s fair value.
What Counts as “Heirs Property” Under RPAPL 993(2)
The statute’s protections apply only to property that meets the definition of heirs property in RPAPL 993(2)(e). Under the current statute, real property is heirs property if it is held in tenancy in common (the standard form of co-ownership that results when several people inherit under a will or by intestacy under EPTL 4-1.1), there is no agreement in a record binding all the cotenants that governs partition of the property, and one or more of the cotenants acquired title from a relative, living or deceased.
“Relative” is defined broadly to include ascendants, descendants, collateral relatives, and individuals otherwise related by blood or affinity. As originally enacted in 2019, the statute also required that a minimum percentage of the ownership interests or of the cotenants themselves be relatives; the Legislature amended RPAPL 993 in 2021 to broaden the definition, so a much wider range of inherited and family-transferred property now qualifies.
Typical qualifying scenarios include siblings who inherited a parent’s house through probate or intestacy; a house deeded by a parent to children during life; and property held by cousins descended from a common grandparent, even where one cousin later sold their share to an outside investor. The investor takes subject to the statute because the other cotenants acquired title from a relative.
Property does not qualify if it is held under a written co-ownership or partition agreement binding all cotenants, held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship, owned by an LLC or held in trust (the entity or trustee owns it, not tenants in common), or still owned by an estate before distribution.
Threshold Determination and Notice
In every partition action, the court must determine at the outset whether the property is heirs property. If it is, RPAPL 993 governs the action unless all cotenants agree otherwise in a record. Two procedural safeguards apply early in the case.
Posted notice
In addition to ordinary service of process, the plaintiff must post a conspicuous sign on the property stating that the action has been commenced and identifying the court and the property (RPAPL 993(4)). This protects unknown or hard-to-locate heirs, which is common when title has passed through more than one generation without estate administration.
Settlement conference
New York’s version of the act, unlike the uniform model, directs the court to hold a settlement conference early in the case, similar in spirit to residential foreclosure conferences. Family members get a structured opportunity to negotiate a buyout, a sale among themselves, or a co-ownership agreement before the statutory machinery runs.
Step One: Court-Ordered Appraisal (RPAPL 993(6))
Unless all cotenants agree on a value, the court must order an appraisal by a disinterested licensed real estate appraiser to determine the property’s fair market value as a single whole. This replaces the old practice of letting an auction “discover” the price. The appraisal is filed with the court, all parties receive notice, and any party may object. The court holds a hearing no sooner than 30 days after notice of the filing, considers the appraisal and any other evidence, and then fixes the fair market value. The court may dispense with an appraisal only if the parties have agreed on value or the appraisal’s cost would outweigh its evidentiary benefit.
Step Two: The Cotenant Buyout Right (RPAPL 993(7))
This is the heart of the statute. If any cotenant has asked the court to order partition by sale, the court must notify all parties that the other cotenants, everyone except those seeking a sale, may elect to buy all of the interests of the cotenants who want the sale.
| Element | Rule |
|---|---|
| Election deadline | An eligible cotenant must give notice of election within 45 days after the court sends the buyout notice. |
| Price | The court-determined fair market value of the entire property multiplied by the selling cotenant’s fractional interest. It is not a negotiated or discounted price. |
| Payment deadline | After the election period closes, the court sets a payment date no sooner than 60 days later, by which electing cotenants must deposit the purchase price with the court. |
| Multiple buyers | If more than one cotenant elects, the purchased interest is allocated among them in proportion to their existing ownership shares. |
| Defaults | If an electing cotenant fails to pay, the remaining electing cotenants get a short additional window (20 days) to take up the unpaid share. |
Worked Example
Three siblings inherit their mother’s house in equal shares under EPTL 4-1.1, so each holds a one-third tenancy-in-common interest. Sibling A sues for partition and demands a sale. The court-appointed appraiser values the house at $600,000, and the court confirms that figure after the 30-day objection period. Sibling A’s buyout price is therefore one-third of $600,000, or $200,000.
Siblings B and C each have 45 days to elect to buy A’s interest. If both elect, each pays $100,000 (allocated in proportion to their equal shares) and each ends up owning 50% of the house. If only B elects, B pays the full $200,000 and afterward owns two-thirds, with C keeping one-third. If B elects but fails to deposit $200,000 within the 60-day payment period, C gets 20 days to step in.
If all of the interests of the cotenants seeking a sale are purchased, the forced-sale threat is over: the remaining owners keep the property and the case is resolved as to the bought-out shares.
Step Three: Preference for Partition in Kind (RPAPL 993(8)–(9))
If no buyout fully resolves the case, the court must order partition in kind, a physical division of the property, unless dividing it would result in great prejudice to the cotenants as a group. The statute directs the court to weigh whether the property can practicably be divided among the cotenants; whether a division would leave parcels whose combined fair market value is materially less than the value of the property as a whole; how long the family has collectively owned the property; a cotenant’s sentimental attachment, including any ancestral or unique historic or cultural value; a cotenant’s lawful current use of the property (for example, living in the house) and the harm that cotenant would suffer if forced out; the tax and other economic consequences of a sale; and any other relevant factor.
The court may also order owelty, a cash equalization payment, where a physical division cannot be made perfectly equal. In practice, a single-family house in a city cannot be physically divided, so these factors matter most for land, multi-parcel holdings, and properties with severable portions.
Step Four: Open-Market Sale Instead of Auction (RPAPL 993(10))
If the court determines a sale is required, the default under RPAPL 993 is an open-market sale, not an auction. The court appoints a New York-licensed real estate broker (agreed to by the parties if possible) to list the property at the court-determined value. If an offer at or above that value comes in within a reasonable time, the broker reports the offer’s price, terms, and buyer to the court, and the sale proceeds subject to court confirmation.
If no such offer materializes within a reasonable time, the court may approve the highest outstanding offer, redetermine the value, or, only if it finds it economically advantageous to the cotenants as a group, order a sale by sealed bids or auction. Sale proceeds are divided among the cotenants according to their fractional interests, subject to accounting adjustments (for example, credits for taxes, insurance, and necessary repairs one cotenant paid, or charges for exclusive occupancy in appropriate cases).
Key Deadlines at a Glance
| Event | Timing |
|---|---|
| Hearing on the filed appraisal | No sooner than 30 days after notice of the appraisal’s filing; objections should be raised before or at the hearing |
| Cotenant election to buy out interests of cotenants seeking sale | Within 45 days after the court’s buyout notice |
| Deposit of the buyout price with the court | By a court-set date no sooner than 60 days after the election period ends |
| Additional election if a buyer defaults | 20 days for remaining electing cotenants |
These deadlines are short and consequential. A cotenant who misses the 45-day election window loses the statutory buyout right, and the case moves on to the partition-in-kind analysis and, potentially, a sale.
How RPAPL 993 Interacts with Estate Administration
Partition actions are brought in Supreme Court in the county where the property is located, not in Surrogate’s Court. But heirs property problems almost always begin with an estate, and the two systems interact.
Title vests before partition is possible
Real property passes to distributees at death by operation of law in intestacy (EPTL 4-1.1) or to beneficiaries under a probated will, subject to the fiduciary’s powers during administration. Only once the heirs hold title as tenants in common does RPAPL 993 come into play.
Surrogate’s Court alternatives
While an estate is being administered, the executor or administrator may sell estate real property under the fiduciary powers of EPTL 11-1.1 or through a proceeding for the disposition of real property under SCPA Article 19 (SCPA 1901 et seq.). Families sometimes resolve co-ownership disputes at that stage, before a partition action is ever needed.
Missing heirs
Property that passed through one or more unadministered estates often has unknown or unlocatable co-owners. The posting requirement of RPAPL 993(4) and careful due-diligence affidavits are critical in these cases, and a kinship investigation may be necessary to establish who the tenants in common actually are.
Common Pitfalls
| Pitfall | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Assuming every inherited property is covered | A written co-ownership agreement, joint tenancy, trust ownership, or LLC ownership takes the property outside RPAPL 993. Confirm how title is actually held before relying on the statute. |
| Missing the 45-day election | The buyout right is the statute’s most powerful protection, and it evaporates on a fixed timetable. Cotenants who want to keep the property should line up financing before the appraisal is confirmed, not after the notice arrives. |
| Ignoring the appraisal stage | The confirmed fair market value sets the buyout price and the listing price. A cotenant who believes the appraisal is too high or too low must object and present evidence at the valuation hearing. It is very difficult to revisit later. |
| Signing away rights | RPAPL 993 applies “unless all cotenants otherwise agree in a record.” Investors who purchase heirs’ interests may present documents that waive the statute’s protections. Cotenants should not sign anything without understanding this consequence. |
| Overlooking accounting claims | Buyout price and sale-proceeds division are based on fractional interests, but credits for carrying costs, repairs, and rents collected can significantly change the final numbers and must be raised in the action. |
| Letting title problems fester | Each generation that passes without probate or administration multiplies the number of cotenants and the difficulty of any resolution. Administering the estates promptly keeps the ownership picture manageable. |
Co-Owner of Inherited Property Facing a Forced Sale?
We represent cotenants, heirs and estate fiduciaries in partition actions, heirs property buyouts under RPAPL 993 and the related Surrogate’s Court proceedings: co-owners exercising the buyout right to keep family property, and owners who need a fair-value sale. The Act’s appraisal and election deadlines decide who keeps the house, and they begin running early in the case. Call the Law Offices of Albert Goodwin at 212-233-1233 or email [email protected].
Related resources on this site: forced sale of inherited property, petition to force the sale of a house, partition attorney.
For partition actions outside the heirs-property context, such as investment properties, former couples and business co-owners, see the partition practice at Goodwin Real Estate Law.
About the Author
Albert Goodwin Esq. is a licensed New York attorney with over 18 years of courtroom experience. His extensive knowledge and experience make him well-qualified to write authoritative articles on a wide range of legal topics. He can be reached at 212-233-1233 or [email protected].
