Case Title: Blackmon v. Blackmon

Citation: 350 So. 2d 44

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1977-09-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
350 So. 2d 44 (1977) Helen B. BLACKMON v. Edward H. BLACKMON. No. 49590. Supreme Court of Mississippi. September 21, 1977. *45 Ramsey, Bodron, Thames & Robinson, Lee Davis Thames, Vicksburg, for appellant. Loyacono & Field, R. Louis Field, Vicksburg, for appellee. Before SMITH, P.J., BROOM and LEE, JJ., and SULLIVAN, C. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, Commissioner for the Court:[1] Appellant, Helen B. Blackmon, filed a petition for partition in the Chancery Court of Warren County, Mississippi, against her former husband, Edward H. Blackmon. The property sought to be partited was residential, and appellant had been awarded exclusive use and occupancy of the house in the decree of divorce between these same parties. The appellee resisted the partition suit, although his pleadings admit the land was not subject to partition in kind. The chancellor dismissed the bill at the cost of the appellant and with prejudice. Appellant's first assignment of error is that the prior decree of divorce granting the appellant exclusive use of the house did not create a property right in the appellant that would defeat her own partition action. With this proposition we must concur. The position of the appellee that Mrs. Blackmon's right to exclusive occupancy defeated her statutory right to partition, however appealing, is without merit. These parties were tenants in common, and appellant was the tenant in possession. The partition of land in this state is governed by Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 11-21-3 (1972) which provides: Mrs. Blackmon, as a tenant in common before the divorce with an undivided one-half interest in the property, has the same status following the divorce. Clearly she comes within the purview of § 11-21-3. *46 In Mississippi it is well settled that a dissolution of a marriage by divorce does not, of itself, affect title of the respective parties to real estate owned by them. Miller v. Miller, 298 So. 2d 704 (Miss. 1974). It is clear that Mrs. Blackmon received no property right by virtue of the divorce decree which could defeat a partition suit. The appellee concedes that the case law in our state supports the appellant's view but distinguishes the present case on the basis that there was no in depth examination as to the best interest of the minor children or any material change of circumstances by which the divorce decree could be modified. We concede that the appellant could have sought to partite the homestead by filing a petition to modify the decree. However, she elected not to do so and to exercise her statutory right to a separate suit to partite. In Lynch v. Lynch, 196 Miss. 276, 17 So. 2d 195 (1944), this Court held that all that was necessary for a partition is that the parties be co-tenants of whatever is to be partitioned. In Barnes v. Rogers, 206 Miss. 887, 893, 41 So. 2d 58, 60 (1949) it is stated: We are of the opinion that appellant had the right to bring the suit for partition and that the denial of such right on the ground that the divorce decree had created a separate property right was error. Appellant secondly contends that the divorce decree did not create a homestead right in the appellant or appellee which would defeat the partition action. Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 85-3-21 (1972) states: Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 27-33-3 (1972) provides, in part: To be qualified for homestead in Mississippi, one must be a citizen, reside on the property and have a family. There are exceptions to the rule, as mentioned in the statute, but none apply here. Prior to the divorce, Mr. Blackmon resided in the home with his family and held homestead exemption thereto. Following the divorce, he neither lived on the property nor did he have a spouse living there. There is no evidence that he has even attempted to file for homestead exemption on the property. In May v. May, 229 Miss. 97, 90 So. 2d 169 (1956), this Court held that where the husband lost his right to occupy the premises, he lost his homestead right, also. Therefore, it is clear that Mr. Blackmon held no homestead exemption on the property *47 which could be used to defeat the partition action. The record indicates that following the divorce Mrs. Blackmon filed for the exemption in her own name, and it was granted. The divorce decree did not create the homestead right in Mrs. Blackmon because she already had a homestead right in the property. Therefore, the divorce decree created no homestead right that would prevent a partition of the property under the governing statutes and the facts in evidence in this case. Appellant's third proposition is that the existence of homestead rights in one co-tenant does not defeat the right of partition by the other co-tenant. Discussion of this assignment of error is closely related to Assignment No. 2. The right to partition pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 11-21-3 (1972), makes no mention of homestead. The only existing statute which refers to both the homestead and partition is Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 91-1-23 (1972), which provides: This code section is obviously inapplicable because neither appellant nor appellee is deceased. Absent any contrary authority, the sound rule is that Mr. and Mrs. Blackmon are merely unmarried tenants in common, and under the statute a partition sale should be ordered. The existence of homestead rights, if any, in appellant is irrelevant in this case, since she waived them by bringing the suit for partition sale. The appellant also argues that she should have been allowed a solicitor's fee to be made a charge against the property. We cannot agree. Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 11-21-31 (1972), provides, among other things: The appellant's contention that appellee here had no real defense to the partition action and that no controversy existed has no merit. The case law interpreting § 11-21-31 clearly directs the opposite result. In Dailey v. Houston, 246 Miss. 667, 684-5, 151 So. 2d 919, 927 (1963), the Court held: See also Billingsley v. Billingsley, 114 Miss. 702, 75 So. 547 (1917); Hardy v. Richards, 103 Miss. 548, 60 So. 643 (1912); Hoffman v. Smith, 61 Miss. 544 (1884). In Brower v. Rosenbaum & Little, 125 Miss. 87, 91, 87 So. 130, 131 (1921), the Court held: In addition, this Court has held in White v. Brown, 204 So. 2d 440 (Miss. 1967), that the court cannot award attorneys fees under the statute until partition in kind or sale for division of proceeds has been completed and approved by the court. Further, applying § 11-21-31, the Court finds that the statute is not mandatory but discretionary, and the express language is "the Court may allow a reasonable solicitor's fee to the solicitor or the complainant". We cannot say from the record that the denial of attorneys fees to be taxed as a common charge on all of the interests and paid out of the proceeds in the case of a sale was an abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor. For the reasons set forth above, the petition for partition or sale should not have been dismissed, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and judgment entered here to allow partition. The cause is remanded with direction to hold the sale not inconsistent with the direction of this opinion. While we affirm the chancellor on his denial of attorneys fees, at the conclusion of the sale he may, in his discretion, consider whether such fees should be allowed. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur. [1] pursuant to Chapter 430, Laws of 1976. The above opinion is adopted as the opinion of the court.