Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Partition Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court Considers Whether 'Triangular Parcel' Should Count Toward Divorce Buyout
Summary
In Goncalves v. Goncalves the appeals panel heard argument over whether a small triangular parcel was correctly included in the marital property valuation and whether the trial court properly credited mortgage payments, improvements and litigation costs. Appellate briefs and oral argument focused on appraisal methodology and equitable offsets.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court considered an appeal from a partition order that included a small, oddly shaped "triangular parcel" in the marital property valuation. Appellant Felicia Jacques, through counsel Michael Cosentino, argued the trial court erred by combining that parcel with primary improved parcels, inflating the buyout price and denying the wife reimbursement for mortgage payments, capital improvements and defense costs.
Cosentino told the panel the triangular parcel had "no value to either party" standing alone and that including it in the buyout calculation conferred "an unfair benefit to the husband." He asked the court to find the trial court abused its discretion, to order separate appraisals of the parcels and to credit the appellant for mortgage payments and other offsets required by the divorce agreement.
John Bennett, arguing for appellee Armando Gonzalez, defended the trial court’s approach, telling the court the triangular parcel historically functioned as an adjunct to the primary parcels, lacked independent marketability, and that the judge followed the contract's offset procedure when distributing proceeds and reimbursements.
The panel questioned whether separate petitions under the partition statute (chapter 241) would have been a feasible alternative and whether the land court had sufficient discretion to treat the parcels together. After argument the matter was submitted for decision.
Because the appeal centers on property description, appraisal practice and contract interpretation, the court’s ruling will affect how land courts handle small, non‑standard parcels in partition and buyout contexts.
