As a general rule, community property held by a spouse cannot be divided between spouses[v]. The voluntary sharing of collective property is considered contrary to public order, as it is contrary to the concept of ancestry. But there are certain jurisdictions that give spouses the freedom to share collective property. As a general rule, a voluntary division is considered valid. The courts consider that all co-owners would have received their fair share of the property in kind or in cash, unless it is proved otherwise[iii]. A court intervenes in voluntary divisions only if the rights of other parties have been affected. A voluntary division must be done on the basis of an agreement between all the co-owners. It must not be a unilateral decision. Parties to a voluntary division may accept a owelty payment, a payment that is made to compensate for an unequal division. A division by oral agreement may or may not be covered by the Fraud Act, depending on the statutes of different states[vii]. An oral breakdown within the fraud status is invalid and unenforceable.
Some states require by law that a division be made by an act. The courts generally maintain the voluntary division made by the spouses because of the separation between them. Agreements made after marriage with regard to division are sometimes respected. However, a posteriori separation by a spouse after a separation destroys a division agreement concluded under a separation agreement[vi]. Florida provides for division actions by law, Chapter 64, which essentially provides that any co-owner of real estate may apply for a division.  In Florida, there is in principle no defense against a division action unless the parties have agreed not to divide the real property. And where the parties are here by the registration of the division in question. In D`Arcy v. Buckley, 71 Bucks Co. L. Rep. 167 (1997), two persons purchased immovable property as joint tenants with right of survival.
The claimant contributed five times more than the defendant to the purchase price. In an appeal in division, the applicant claimed the credit in full of his higher contributions. The Court decided that, in the absence of fraud, the work of the deed had the effect of giving half an interest to each of the two common tenants. The decision is based on the authorities of Masgai v. Masgai, 460 Pa. 453, 333 A.2d 861 (1975) and DeLoatch v. Murphy, 369 Pa. That`s great. 255, 535 A.2d 146 (1987). The applicant argued in vain that he did not intend to give a lifetime gift to the defendant. There are three types of divisions that can be allocated by judicial means: distribution in kind, distribution by allocation and distribution by sale. A partition can only be challenged by the parts of the partition.
An insurance company cannot challenge a division by claiming that the insured property is the exclusive property of the insured. The fact that the applicant is motivated by economic reasons or simply wants to make his investment is not necessarily a sufficient reason to exclude a sale. The fact that a sale results in a financial loss of oneself does not preclude an order for division and sale if, on the other hand, the court wishes to require a sale. A judgment mortgage is extinguished with the death of the debtor.