Raper v. Belk, 6 Div. 5
| Decision Date | 26 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 5 |
| Citation | 276 Ala. 370,162 So.2d 465 |
| Parties | Cornelia PAPER v. Ruby BELK et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Cato & Hicks, Birmingham, for appellant.
Nelson Vinson, Hamilton, for appellees.
Appeal from a decree ordering certain lands sold for division among the joint owners. The decree must be reversed for the failure of appellees to prove their allegation that the 'lands cannot be equitably divided or partitioned among the joint owners or tenants in common without a sale of the same.'
Partition of land between joint owners or tenants in common is a matter of right, but the alternative right to have land sold for division is statutory, and is conditioned upon averment and proof that the property cannot be equitably divided or partitioned among them. When this condition appears, the right to sell for division is a matter of right, but if this condition is not proven, no sale for division should be ordered. Leonard v. Meadows, 264 Ala. 484, 88 So.2d 775; Meador v. Meador, 255 Ala. 688, 53 So.2d 546; Hall v. Hall, 250 Ala. 702, 35 So.2d 681; Tit. 47, §§ 186, 210, Code 1940.
Appellees argue that the testimony describing the land as 'pretty hilly' meets the requirement. But hilly land is susceptible to partition and that characterization does not comply with the condition precedent to ordering land sold for division.
The decree is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hicks v. Hicks
...cannot be equitably partitioned in kind is a matter of right. Christian v. McConnell, 208 Ala. 300, 94 So. 280 (1922); Raper v. Belk, 276 Ala. 370, 162 So.2d 465 (1964). The party seeking the sale must prove that a fair and equitable partition in kind cannot be made. Meador v. Meador, 255 A......
-
Barrow v. Myhand
...be conditioned upon A's averment and proof that the property could not be equitably divided or partitioned among them. Raper v. Belk, 276 Ala. 370, 162 So.2d 465 (1964)."C, provided he notified the court as required by s 35–6–100, could purchase A's interest, because A was the petitioner; C......
-
Irons v. Le Sueur
...sell for division is a matter of right, but if this condition is not proven, no sale for division should be ordered." Raper v. Belk, 276 Ala. 370, 162 So.2d 465 (1964); Ragland v. Walker, 387 So.2d 184 Irons next contends that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof. The plaintiff......
-
Watson v. Durr
...30 So. 792 (1900); Lyons v. Jacoway, 205 Ala. 479, 88 So. 597 (1921); Burr v. Fox, 227 Ala. 543, 150 So. 911 (1933); Raper v. Belk, 276 Ala. 370, 162 So.2d 465 (1964); Vaughn v. Thomas, 372 So.2d 1309 (Ala.1979).2 Wood v. Barnett, 208 Ala. 295, 94 So. 338 (1922); Bedsole v. Bedsole, 272 Ala......
-
Indestructible Survivorship or Destructible Survivorship: Which Form of Survivorship Is Best for Your Client?
...v. Johnson, 446 So.2d 622 (Ala. 1983)25. Killingsworth v. Killingsworth, 226 So. 2d 308 (Ala. 1969); Owens, 201 So. 2d.26. Paper v. Belk, 162 So. 2d 465 (Ala. 1964); Ragland v. Walker, 387 So. 2d 184 (Ala. 1980); Leonard v. Meadows, 88 So. 2d 775 (Ala. 1956); Meador v. Meador, 53 So. 2d 546......