Platt v. Platt, 2011 WY 155

After their father's death, Ralph E. Platt and Wayne W. Platt inherited a Wyoming ranch and placed part of it in the Platt Ranch Trust.
Disputes among siblings over trust operation and property management led to litigation seeking partition under Wyoming law.
Three court-appointed commissioners conducted a partition under § 1-32-104 and proposed a division with Easement 3 and Easement 2 creating access issues.
A district court hearing considered objections to Easement 3 and ultimately vacated Easement 3 and Easement 2, granting about 2.07 acres to Appellants to resolve some issues.
Appellants urged modification of the commissioners' report to relocate Easement 3 and grant irrigation rights, while Appellees opposed the proposed modification as unnecessary or burdensome.
The district court affirmed the partition with two modifications (vacating Easement 3 and eliminating Easement 2) and the appellants appealed contending lack of authority to modify the partition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court may modify a commissioners' partition without their review	Platt: court cannot modify commissioners' partition.	Platt: court may modify under § 1-32-105, 1-32-109 and equity.	Yes; district court may modify.

McCarthy v. Lippitt, 150 Ohio App. 3d 367 (Ohio 2002) (trial court may order appraisal; commissioners' powers are subject to court approval)
Morris v. Daniel, 183 Ky. 780 (Ky. 1919) (commissioners' report is advisory; court may adopt or modify)
MacDonald v. Bernal, 34 Cal. App. 431 (Cal. App. 1917) (referee's report in partition is advisory to court)
Forest Park Properties, Inc. v. Pine, 9 Ohio App. 2d 348 (Ohio 1966) (partition commissioners' role is pre-judicial/advisory; court retains power)
McGill v. Roush, 87 Ohio App.3d 66 (Ohio 1993) (court remains responsible; partition is judicial power)