Case Title: Bettye Manson, Kitty V. Thompson and William M. Thompson, Jr. v. Dinah McNeil, Julia Galloway and Daniel Mason.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1210006

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2022-08-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel: August 26, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern 
Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other 
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
 
SPECIAL TERM, 2022 
 
_________________________ 
 
1210006 
_________________________ 
 
Bettye Manson, Kitty V. Thompson, and William M. Thompson, Jr. 
 
v. 
 
Dinah McNeil, Julia Galloway, and Daniel Mason 
 
 
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court 
(CV-20-900139) 
 
 
 
MITCHELL, Justice. 
 
AFFIRMED.  NO OPINION. 
1210006 
2 
 
 
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A), Ala. R. App. P. 
 
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur. 
 
Mitchell, J., concurs specially, with opinion. 
 
 
1210006 
3 
 
MITCHELL, Justice (concurring specially). 
 
It's appropriate here to affirm the circuit court's judgment without 
opinion.  I write specially to underline for the lower courts and the bar 
the existence of the Alabama Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, 
§ 35-6A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, which I believe should have been 
applied in this case. 
In 2014, Alabama became one of the first states in the country to 
adopt the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act ("the UPHPA").  See 
Thomas W. Mitchell, Reforming Property Law to Address Devastating 
Land Loss, 66 Ala. L. Rev. 1, 7 (2014).  The UPHPA is a "comprehensive 
and significant innovation" to state partition law, "at least insofar as that 
law applies to partition actions involving family-owned, tenancy-in-
common property."  Id. at 6.  The UPHPA sets out certain procedures to 
better protect "the property rights of certain tenancy-in-common property 
owners who traditionally have been most at risk of losing their property 
at a forced partition sale" and to "improve[] the ability of [those] tenancy-
in-common property owners to maintain their real-estate-based wealth 
should a court order such a forced partition sale."  Id.   Typically, the 
tenancy-in-common property owners covered by the UPHPA have 
1210006 
4 
 
inherited property through intestate succession or an unsophisticated 
will.  
Our Legislature enacted the UPHPA through the Alabama Uniform 
Partition of Heirs Property Act ("the Heirs Act"), which applies to all 
partition actions commenced in Alabama on or after January 1, 2015. 
§ 35-6A-3(a), Ala. Code 1975.  The Heirs Act "supplements" the general 
partition provisions contained in Chapter 6 of Title 35 of the Alabama 
Code of 1975, "and if an action is governed by [the Heirs Act], [it] replaces 
those provisions of Chapter 6 … that are inconsistent with [the Heirs 
Act]."  § 35-6A-3(c).  Importantly, under the Heirs Act, in any action to 
partition real property, "the court shall determine whether the property 
is heirs property."  § 35-6A-3(b) (emphasis added).1  
 
1The commentary to the Heirs Act instructs that "[a] final order of 
a court in a partition action filed on or after [January 1, 2015,] is subject 
to challenge if the court failed to determine whether the real property in 
question is heirs property as that term is defined under this Act."  § 35-
6A-3, Uniform Cmt. 1.  In other words, a party could challenge a final 
order in a partition action if the circuit court failed to make the required 
threshold determination of whether the property is heirs property, even 
if the property is not heirs property and thus not ultimately governed by 
the Heirs Act. 
1210006 
5 
 
The Heirs Act defines heirs property as "[r]eal property held in 
tenancy in common which satisfies" the following requirements "as of the 
filing of the partition action":    
 
"(A) There is no agreement in a record binding all the 
cotenants which governs the partition of the property; 
 
"(B) One or more of the cotenants acquired title from a 
relative, whether living or deceased; and 
 
 
"(C) Any of the following applies: 
 
"(i) Twenty percent or more of the interests 
are held by cotenants who are relatives; 
 
 
"(ii) Twenty percent or more of the interests 
are held by an individual who acquired title from 
a relative, whether living or deceased; or 
 
 
"(iii) Twenty percent or more of the cotenants 
are relatives." 
 
§ 35-6A-2(5), Ala. Code 1975.  If property is heirs property, "the property 
shall be partitioned under [the Heirs Act] unless all of the cotenants 
otherwise agree in a record."  § 35-6A-3(b) (emphasis added).  
 
The Heirs Act is a relatively recent innovation to Alabama's 
partition law -- in fact, to my knowledge, our Court has applied the 
statute only once, in Stephens v. Claridy, [Ms. 1200006, June 30, 2021] 
___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2021).  But it is an important innovation, as indicated 
1210006 
6 
 
by the Heirs Act's mandatory language and its potential to streamline 
litigation over inherited land.  For that reason, lower courts and members 
of the bar should become familiar with the Heirs Act and invoke it in 
disputes about family property inherited by tenants in common.