Best v. Williams, 76--71
| Decision Date | 21 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--71,76--71 |
| Citation | 537 S.W.2d 793,260 Ark. 30 |
| Parties | Ray BEST, Appellant, v. Judy WILLIAMS, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Paul K. Roberts, Warren, for appellant.
John F. Gibson, Jr., Dermott, for appellee.
Appellant Ray Best and appellee Judy Williams were divorced November 11, 1972. In that decree appellee was awarded for life a one-third interest in 210 acres of land owned by appellant. Following her remarriage and the relinquishment of custody of the two children to appellant, appellee brought an action to partition the 210 acres. The trial court entered an order appointing commissioners to divide the lands in kind. For reversal appellant raises the issues hereinafter discussed.
We find no merit in appellant's contention that this partition action is prevented by the homestead laws, Ark.Const. art. 9 § 3. As pointed out in Keesee v. Bushart, 203 Ark. 668, 158 S.W.2d 915 (1942), one may not claim the homestead exemption as to a claimant against whom he does not have an exclusive possessory right--i.e. a homestead exemption cannot be claimed in a partition suit against a co-tenant.
Appellant also complains that the trial court erred in consolidating the partition suit with the original divorce action. Since the divorce decree would not be conclusive of the right of appellee to a partition, we can find no prejudicial error that could result from the consolidation.
Appellant complains that the trial court erred in awarding the appellee in the original divorce action a one-third interest for life in the whole 210 acres instead of designating the specific property to which she was entitled. Not having appealed from that decision within the time permitted by law, the appellant is not now in a position to complain.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawrence v. Harvey
...that a former spouse is entitled to partition after a decree of divorce. Tullis v. Tullis (Fla.1978), 360 So.2d 375; Best v. Williams (1976), 260 Ark. 30, 537 S.W.2d 793; Squibb v. Squibb (1961), 190 Cal.App.2d 766, 12 Cal.Rptr. 346; Barba v. Barba (1951), 103 Cal.App.2d 395, 229 P.2d 465, ......
-
Wilson v. Prentiss
...found that some have permitted former spouses to maintain partition actions after entry of a final divorce decree. See Best v. Williams, 260 Ark. 30, 537 S.W.2d 793 (1976) (finding that a divorce decree is not conclusive of the right to partition); Squibb v. Squibb, 190 Cal.App.2d 766, 12 C......
-
Nelson v. Nelson, CA
...of divorce within the time permitted by law, the appellant is not now in a position to complain about its provisions. Best v. Williams, 260 Ark. 30, 537 S.W.2d 793 (1976). As to appellant's second argument, that the appellee's motion for contempt was unaccompanied by an affidavit and not ve......
-
In re Cunningham
...that a tenant in common can assert a claim of homestead against creditors but not against cotenants. See, e.g., Best v. Williams, 260 Ark. 30, 537 S.W.2d 793 (1976); Tullis v. Tullis, 342 So.2d 88 (Fla.App.1977); Gottsch v. Ireland, 358 P.2d 1097 (Okl.1961). See also Ill.Rev.Stat. c. 110, p......