Case Title: Prince v. Hunter

Citation: 388 So. 2d 546

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1980-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
388 So. 2d 546 (1980)
Ronald PRINCE and Helen Prince Lyles
v.
Ned HUNTER.
79-328.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 19, 1980.
Gould H. K. Blair, Birmingham, for appellants.
J. Richmond Pearson, Birmingham, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the trial court's decree ordering a public sale of certain jointly owned property.
On August 31, 1979, appellee, Ned Hunter, filed a petition for a sale for division of certain real property. The petition alleged that the property was owned jointly by appellee and appellants, Ronald Prince and Helen Lyles, as tenants in common. The petition named appellants as defendants, stated that the property could not be equitably partitioned or divided in kind, and *547 requested a sale for division. Included in the petition was a request that appellee be allowed to bid on the property at the public sale.
The case was set for hearing on December 18, 1979. On December 7, 1979, appellants notified the court, by letter, of their desire to purchase appellee's interest in the property as provided in Code, § 35-6-100 (Cum.Supp.1979). The court subsequently rendered a decree ordering a public sale. The court did not hear any evidence in the case nor does the record contain any stipulation by the parties as to ownership or partitionability of the property. The decree provides as follows:
The appellants moved for a new trial on January 14, 1980, claiming that they had complied with § 35-6-100, providing for purchase of a filing joint owner's interest, and were entitled to purchase appellee's interest. The motion for new trial was denied on January 18, 1980, and this appeal followed.[1]
The sole issue is whether Code, § 35-6-100 (Cum.Supp.1979), is applicable in this case. Section 35-6-100 provides as follows:
The statute ostensibly was drafted to protect joint owners from being divested of their property in a forced sale by allowing them the option to purchase the filing joint owner's interest. The operative words are "the court shall provide for the purchase [of the petitioner's interest] by the other joint owners ...." (Emphasis added.) Ragland v. Walker, 387 So. 2d 184 (Ala.1980). The statute in using the word "shall" makes it mandatory, upon the filing of a petition for sale for division, that the court provide for the purchase of the petitioner's interest by the other joint owners if they notify the court of their interest in purchasing petitioner's interest at least ten days before the day set for trial. Thus, § 35-6-100 is applicable *548 to the instant proceeding, and it was error for the court to order a public sale without consideration of § 35-6-100.
Appellee contends that the word "shall" should be construed as permissive so that § 35-6-100 is not mandatory in all cases. Appellee argues that the Legislature intended the purchase provision of § 35-6-100 to apply only to cases where an "outsider" would acquire "family" property by forcing a public sale and outbidding the "family" joint owners. According to appellee, construing the word "shall" as mandatory would potentially require purchases without public sale in all sale for division cases, even when the joint owners are all family members. This, appellee concludes, is not within the Legislature's intention so "shall," in this case, must be construed as permissive in order to effectuate legislative intent.
Although generally the word "shall" in a statute is used in a mandatory sense, it is true that "shall" may be construed as permissive where from the circumstances it is obvious that the Legislature intended it so or where the validity of the statute is placed in jeopardy. Morgan v. State, 280 Ala. 414, 417, 194 So. 2d 820 (1967). Neither of these situations is present in the instant case: the statute is not constitutionally defective as written nor is it obvious from the statute that the Legislature intended it only to apply when the joint owner forcing the public sale is an "outsider"-the abuses to be prevented by the statute are equally as likely when only "family" members are involved. Therefore, the word "shall" must be construed as mandatory.
For these reasons, this case is reversed and remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
[1]  Appellants also filed a petition for an alternate writ of mandamus in the event the decree was not of sufficient finality to support an appeal. However, the decree is final for purposes of an appeal, so there is no need to consider the petition for mandamus.