In Re: Estate of Donald Carl Battle
M2017-00227-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Donald Carl Battle died intestate owning a 25% interest in commercial real property at 1033 N. 12th Avenue; Bayside Builders owned the remaining 75%.
- The Estate (Battle’s heirs/administrator) filed a partition action seeking a sale under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-27-101–219 because the property could not be divided in kind.
- A prior 1992 agreed order had fixed Battle’s interest at 25% (and Bayside’s predecessor at 75%); the trial court treated ownership percentages as res judicata and undisputed.
- The trial court ordered an appraisal; Bayside submitted an appraisal valuing the fee simple at $340,000 and offered to buy the Estate’s 25% interest for $85,000.
- The trial court directed Bayside to pay $85,000 to purchase the Estate’s share (or else list the property for sale) and allowed Bayside to deposit funds with the clerk pending quitclaim; the Estate appealed the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was the Estate’s appeal timely? | Estate: December 15 order was not final; January 13 order was final; notice filed within 30 days. | Bayside: December 15 order was final; Estate’s January 24 notice untimely. | Held: Appeal timely. December 15 order left matters (e.g., motion to deposit funds, contingency sale) outstanding; January 13 order was final and notice was timely. |
| 2) Did the trial court err by ordering the Estate to convey its 25% interest to Bayside at the appraised price instead of ordering a sale under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-27-201? | Estate: Trial court should have ordered a sale under § 29-27-201 (sale for division) because property cannot be partitioned in kind; court lacked authority to divest title by setting a buyout price. | Bayside: One co-tenant may buy another’s interest; appraiser-based buyout is permissible; alternatively Bayside could buy at a sale. | Held: Reversed. Court erred: a court-ordered divestiture at a court-set price is not a § 29-27-201 sale; Yates prohibits divesting title from one tenant and vesting it in another absent an actual sale. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with ordering a sale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yates v. Yates, 571 S.W.2d 293 (Tenn. 1978) (chancellor may not divest title from one tenant and vest it in another; court cannot effect title transfer by decree absent proper sale)
- Ball v. McDowell, 288 S.W.3d 833 (Tenn. 2009) (definition of a final judgment — resolves all parties’ claims and leaves nothing for the court to adjudicate)
- Davis v. Solari, 177 S.W. 939 (Tenn. 1915) (co-tenant may purchase another co-tenant’s interest at a sale)