Ackerman v. Heard, 0631

• Decision Date: 16 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 0631,0631
• Citation: 340 S.E.2d 560,287 S.C. 626
• Parties: Kelly C. ACKERMAN and Delaney C. Batson, Appellants, v. Charles W. HEARD, Sara P. Purkerson, and Palmetto Production Credit Association, Defendants, of whom Charles W. Heard is, Respondent. . Heard
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 560

340 S.E.2d 560

287 S.C. 626

Kelly C. ACKERMAN and Delaney C. Batson, Appellants, v. Charles W. HEARD, Sara P. Purkerson, and Palmetto Production Credit Association, Defendants, of whom Charles W Heard is, Respondent.

No. 0631.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard Dec. 16, 1985.

Decided Feb. 10, 1986.

John M. Gulledge, Greenwood, for appellants.

Marvin R. Watson, Greenwood, for respondent.

GARDNER, Judge.

This is an appeal in a partition and accounting action. We reverse.

Ackerman and Batson (the plaintiffs) together own a one-half interest in the subject 100-acre tract of land as tenants in common with Heard (the defendant).

The property was purchased for speculation by the defendant and plaintiffs' father, their predecessor in title, in 1973. The defendant has been the sole occupant since the purchase of the land and has maintained a limited agricultural operation (livestock) on about 30 acres of the land. The plaintiffs and defendant had an understanding that the defendant could use the land as he wished until it was sold. Plaintiffs received no income from the property; they, however, paid their one-half of the property taxes. The defendant reported his expenses as deductions on his income tax returns. In 1981, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant had cut the timber and pulpwood on the subject land without their knowledge or consent and without paying to them their share of the proceeds. This action for accounting and partition followed.

The defendant's answer contained a defense and counterclaim in which he alleged a management agreement with plaintiffs' father whereby the defendant was to maintain and improve the property and pay expenses from profits; and on this counterclaim he asked for one-half of the expenses incurred.

The appealed order provided (1) for a sale of the property, (2) that the value of the timber sold from the subject land was $4,787.77, and that plaintiffs were entitled to half of this, and (3) denial of relief to the defendant on the basis of an agreement with the plaintiffs' father because of the Statute of Frauds but allowed the defendant one-half of the expenditures for the maintenance of the property, hereinafter discussed, on the basis of improvements.

Heard testified he made several improvements on the property which included installing new fencing after cutting down a hedgerow, cutting a fire lane around the tract, repairing a barn located on the property, graveling the gate entrance road, and maintaining pasture lands. The appealed order allowed the defendant one-half of $4,208.29 for reasonable expenditures and improvements.

The land was purchased in 1973 for $475 per acre. The defendant testified that its value at the time of the hearing in 1978 was $1,400 per acre. On the other hand an appraiser for the plaintiffs testified that the top value for the land would be $1,300 per acre for speculative purposes (ostensibly because of development potential). This appraiser testified that this fair market value was greater than its value as purely agricultural property. A real estate broker testified that the barn...