Physical Divisibility Guarantees In Kind Partition
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Real Property1
Example wrong choices
15032_partition-vineyard-siblings · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice AThe sister, because partition by sale is not appropriate if the subject property can be physically divided.
Why it's attractive
The word 'not appropriate if physically divided' is an absolute claim — physical division is necessary but not sufficient. Equity also matters.
Why it's wrong
The word 'not appropriate if physically divided' is an absolute claim — physical division is necessary but not sufficient. Equity also matters.
15032_partition-vineyard-siblings · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice BThe sister, because the ratio of the two lots that would result from her proposal conforms exactly to the ownership ratio.
Why it's attractive
The ratio does match — but the legal test is whether the division is equitable, not whether the numbers are proportional. A non-buildable lot is inequitable regardless of ratio.
Why it's wrong
The ratio does match — but the legal test is whether the division is equitable, not whether the numbers are proportional. A non-buildable lot is inequitable regardless of ratio.
15032_partition-vineyard-siblings · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DThe brother, because partition by sale is the preferred remedy when a co-tenant objects to partition in kind.
Why it's attractive
This reverses the actual preference. Partition IN KIND is preferred; sale is the fallback. The brother wins, but not because sale is the default.
Why it's wrong
This reverses the actual preference. Partition IN KIND is preferred; sale is the fallback. The brother wins, but not because sale is the default.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →