Lockhart v. Collins
81 So. 3d 1050
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Lockhart holds a life estate in 1/4 of 160 acres; Hamiltons hold life estate in 3/4; Collinses hold the remainder as remaindermen.
- Parties share cotenancy; Lockhart seeks partition by public sale in Mississippi.
- Hamiltons and Lockhart occupy homestead; Collinses have future interest not in possession.
- Chancellor initially dismissed suit but later held Lockhart had standing to seek partition against Hamiltons and that partition by sale required written agreement due to homestead status.
- Court concludes Lockhart has standing to partition against Hamiltons, but Section 11-21-1(2) does not apply since parcel not owned by spouses, and partition by sale was not proven warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Lockhart have standing to partition against Hamiltons? | Lockhart argues cotenancy gives right to partition. | Hamiltons contend homestead status blocks sale but not partition. | Lockhart has standing to partition against Hamiltons. |
| Is Section 11-21-1(2) applicable where property is not jointly owned by spouses? | Lockhart argues statute applies to homestead partition between cotenants. | Hamiltons argue it applies only to spouses owning homestead. | Inapplicable; statute requires spouse ownership, not cotenants here. |
| Can partition by sale occur when property is homesteaded by cotenants? | Lockhart seeks sale for equal division. | Hamiltons contend homestead status prevents sale. | Partition by sale not warranted absent proof of statutory requisites. |
| Does the presence of a remainder/reversion prevent partition among possessory cotenants? | Lockhart claims cotenants with possessory rights may partition. | Collinses argue remainder status blocks partition. | Partition allowed among possessory cotenants; remainder does not bar partition among those with possession. |
| Should the case be remanded or affirmed on alternative grounds regarding partition? | Lockhart seeks sale under 11-21-11 if necessary. | Hamiltons urge dismissal and no sale. | Court affirms chancellor's alternative ruling; partition by sale not established; partition in kind pending. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solomon v. Solomon, 187 Miss. 22, 192 So. 10 (Miss. 1939) (homestead occupation does not enlarge cotenant's interest; subject to partition)
- Camp v. Stokes, 41 So.3d 685 (Miss. 2010) (partition rights among cotenants clarified)
- Estate of Dykes v. Estate of Williams, 864 So.2d 926 (Miss. 2003) (partition framework and statutory guidance)
- Cheeks v. Herrington, 523 So.2d 1033 (Miss. 1988) (statutory interpretation and partition principles)
- Overstreet v. Overstreet, 692 So.2d 88 (Miss. 1997) (partition and property rights under Mississippi law)
- Black v. Washington, 65 Miss. 60, 3 So. 140 (Miss. 1887) (early partition principles and cotenancy)