### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE A ugus t 13 , 200 4 S es sio n JO ANN POTTS, ET AL 

### . v. WAL TER ANSEL ROGERS , JR., ET AL 

### .

Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 98-0323 W. F rank Brow n III, Ch ancellor

No. E2003-00524-COA- R3-CV - F ILED S EPTEMBER 9, 2004

I n 1 98 7 s ix (6 ) s ibl ing s a c qu ir e d b y int e state su c c e ssi on , a

11 5- a c retr a c t, m os tly

fl oo d p la in unimproved land borde ring No rt h C h i ck amauga Creek ne ar H ix son, Tennesse e. F ive (5) of the
owner s filed a pa

rtition action ag ainst their brother whose re sidence adjoined an upland portion of the 115 ac res that wa s not subject to flooding. Acon s en t j u d gment was e ntere d in 1998 that the entire a cre ag e would be sold a nd the net proc eeds divided e qually among the s ix (6) owne rs. B ut the conse nt judgment a lso pr ovided that if no off er to purc hase f

or $1,734,150.00 wa s rec eived, the property would not be sold without unanimous consent or upon further order of the court. Four y ear s later the North Chickamaug a Cree k Conservanc y offe red $800,000.00 which wa s acc epted by the plaintiffs, and disdained by the def endant, who a

ppare n t l y wa n t ed the upland tract of 19 a cre s adjoining his re sidence as his partitioned shar e. The court orde red the property s o ld for partition. We m od if

y a s to there a l e state c omm iss iona nda ff ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed as Modif ied
W I L L I AM H. INMAN , S R

. J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J J ., joined.
Gary R. Patrick, Chattanoog a, Te nnessee , for a ppellant, Walter Ansel Rog ers, Jr.
J o h n C

. C av et t , J r. , at t o rn eyfo r a p p el l ee s , J o an n P o t t s , W an d a S u e G an n , Do n n i e R o ger s , Ge o rge Rog e rs , a ndDa

rl e ne Parr ott

. Allen L . McCallie, Chattanoog a, Te nnessee , attorney for a ppellee, N orth Chick amauga Creek C o n s e r v a n c y.
OP IN ION
It is provided by

law that any person having an estate of inheritance a s a tena nt in common with othe rs is e ntitled to a partition t here of or a sale for partition. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29- 27-201,S tyled “J u d g m e n t O rd e r.” 1

T he R ul es of

C i vi l P r ocedur e do not provi de for t he “ r ei ns t at ement ” of a c as e i n t he manne r empl oy ed he r e. 2 T h e p ro c e d u re e m p lo ye d is no t q u e stio n e d b y the a p p e llan t.

T h e di s pos i t i v e i s s u e wa s c l ea r l y i den t i f i ed an d t r i ed an d i n t h e i n t er es t of j u di ci al e con omy a n d t h e t er mi n at i on of l i t i g at i on w e h av e t r ea t ed t h e r ec or d a s pr oper l y c on s t i t u t ed. -2- 29 -2 7- 10 1; Y

ates v. Yates , 571 S.W

. 2 d 2 9 3 (T enn. 1978). This statutory rig ht is the basis of the po lic y in this state to g ivee a c h p e rs on his ow n inse vera lt y a ndno t to fo rc e him to c on tin ue in partne rship with another. See, Nic e ly v . N ic e ly , 293 S.W .2d 30 (Tenn. 1956) . This is accomplished either by a partition i n kind, the operative words being “in kind,” or a sale for partition. Nellie Ruth Roge rs died intestate in 1987. She owne d the rea l e state [115 acres, unimprove d,
a nd85 % in a fl oo d plain] inv olv e d in thi s lit ig a tio n, tit le to w hic h p a sse d to he r s ix (6 ) c hil dr e n, a ll
su i ju ris , in f

ee simple. Five (5) of the children filed a c omplaint in April 1998 ag ainst their brother alleg ing that the 115 acr es could not be equitably partitioned i n kind, but should be sold for partition beca use no agr eeme nt could be reac hed with the def endant. In Aug ust 1998, a consent judg ment 1
was e ntere d that the re al es t at e “s hall be sold for pa rtition and the parties sha ll divide the net proce eds among themselves in six (6) e qual share s.”
But the c onsent judg ment fu rt h er and anomalouslyprovided [upon the insistence of the appellant] that “if no off

er to purcha se is rec eived of at least $1,734,150.00, then no sa le should be had without the written a g ree ment among all parties for a lower price or up on furthe r o rde r o f th is
c ou rt u po n m oti on to re ins tate th is c a s e ma d e b y a n y p ar ty to th is c a s e
. ” [E mp h a s is s u p p li e d ].
About four (4) y ear s later, in May 2002, the pl aintiffs filed a motion to “reinstate” the case , 2
rec iting that the de fendant refuse s t o consent to a sa le of the pr operty . They concur rently filed a motion see king approva l of an offe r by the North Chickamaug a Creek Conservancy [hereaf ter” Conservanc y ”] to purchase the prope rty for $800,000.00. The y

alleg ed that the of

fer was fair and rea sonable, that it was the best pric e obtainable , and that the de fendant refuse d to consent to the sa le . T he y

so ug ht j ud ic ia l app ro va l of the pr op os e d sal e , as b e ing in the ma nif e st b e st i nte re sts of thepa rt ie s.
On Novembe r 14, 2002 the de fendant filed a sepa rate complaint for a

partition in kind of the property , alleg ing that “his share of the re al estate , approximately nineteen a cre s, be partitioned and div ide d s o th a t hewi ll a c tua lly re c e ive app ro xima te ly

nin e te e n a c re s inkin d. ” Th e de fe nd a nts mov e d to dis mis s a lle g ing that th e Au g us t 19 98 c on se nt j ud g me nt w a s re s ju dic ata

. The 2002 c omplaint “and all causes of action . . . in t his procee ding” wer e consolidate d for a pl en ar y h ea ri n g i n J an u ar y 2 0 0 2 wh i ch re s u l t ed i n a j u d gm en tfi n d i n g inte r a lia that it would be to the manifest best intere sts of the parties that the property should be sold rather

than partitioned, and that the of

fer of the Conservanc y was fair and rea sonable and should be approve d. The c ourt a lso fo un d th a t th e 19 98 jud g me nt w a s res judicata of this ong oing litigation, that the def endant wa sW e t reat t hi s d ecret al pro vi si o n as a d i smi ss al of t he co m p l ai nt f i l ed by W al t er A. Ro gers , Jr. 3

T he ap p ell an t ’ s st an ce i s p erp l ex i ng
. H e f i l ed n o a nsw er t o the c o m p l aint for p arti t i o n. H e fi l ed no resp o nse 4
t o t he “ M ot i on t o R ei ns t at e. ” H e f i l ed no r es po ns e t o t he mo t i on t o a pp r ove t he s al e t o t he C ons er van cy
. H i s wi t nes s es w e re e x a m ine d a b o u t t he s peci f i c 19

- acr e t r act of up l an d ad j oi ni ng t he def

enda nt ’ s r es i dence , wh i ch cl ea r l y c ou l d n ot have b een arb i t rari l y award ed t o t he d efend ant

. B ut , when t he d efend ant t est i f i ed - l ast l y - he anno unced hi m sel f wi l l i ng t o “d raw st raw s” for a ny o f si x tracts. W e d ed uc e this st rateg y f ell up o n un rec ep t i ve ea rs.

W e tlan d s a re id e n tif

ie d b y th e d iff

e re n t sp e c ie s o f p la n ts a n d a n im a ls g ro w ing a n d li v ing the re . T h e ter m is 5

som ewhat m i sl ead i ng. -3- c oll a te ra lly

e sto pp e d b y

his c on se nt to the jud g me nt, a nd by his tw o a g re e me nts lis tin g the pr op e rty for sa le, he a cknowledg ed that the acr eag e could not be equitably divided. The “ reque st of Walter Ansel Rog ers, Jr., for a pa rtition of the property

in kind” was de nied. 3 Walter Ansel Rog ers, J r., appe als. He pr esents for revie w the dispositive issue of whethe r thec ou rt e rr e d inits de te rm inatio n tha t the pr op e rty sh ou ld be so ld fo r p art iti on . O ur re vie w i s de
novo on there c or d. We pr e su me thejud g me nt i s c or re c t un le ss the e vid e nc e pr e po nd e rate s a g a ins t it. Tenn. R. App. P. Rul e 13(d)

. Bog an v . Boga n, 60 S.W .3d 721 (Tenn. 2001)

. Ana lys is
The tra ct of land ow ned as te nants in common by the six siblings contai n s 1 1 5 ac re s , of which 100 ac res a

re in the f lood plain of North Chickamaug a C ree k. The a ppellant conc edes that he and his five siblings cannot be compelled to c ontinue their joint ow nership of this ac rea g e, but he ini tially

arg ues that a spe cific portion of it, 19 acre s, should be carved out and a war ded to him as his one-six th share. T he 19-a cre trac t, which adjoins the appellant’s separ ate property , contains, as a pra ctical matter , all of the property above the flood plain. One of the def endant’ s experts testified 4 that th e la ndc ou ld be div ide d into six tra c ts, of e qu a l ac re a g e , but the rewa s n o p ro of that th e se six trac ts would be of equa l quality or value . Parenthe t i ca l l y , we note that a c are ful ana ly sis of the
rec ord re veals that, owing to the topogr aphy of the land, the flood prone North Chickamaug a Cree k, the pr ob le ms of uti lit ie s a nd a c c e ss to e a c h tr a c t, the fa c t that so me e a se me nts - b y c on se nt - wo uld be re quired, a

partition in kind would sim ply exacer bate a n ong oing f

am i l y i mbrog lio, even if a partition in kind was fac tually possible.
The a ppellant ar g ues that the Conservancy and th e Te nnessee Wil dlife Resourc es Ag ency [he re a ft e r “ TWRA”] are the on ly c on se rv a tio n g ro up s in te re ste d inthepr op e rty , a ndthat th e ir interest is focuse d on that portion of t h e p ro p er t y i n the flood plain for which they

will pay $800,00.00, thus satisfy ing the appellee s while allowing hi m to have the upland ac res a s his share. The re cord, how ever , does not support this a rg ument; the offe r by the Conserva ncy of $800,000.00 was for the entire t ract of 115 acres . An ag ent for the TWRA, which will acquire the property from the Conserva ncy , testified that the TWRA had orally ag ree d to pur chase the 115 ac res be cause of the State’s intere st in the acquisition of wetlands which is not li mited to property below the f

lood line. 5 Suffice to say

that the testimony

of the a ppellant’s experts as to what the Conservanc y would orT he acr eag e i s un i mp r oved, acc es s woul d be l i mi t ed t o s om e of t he propo s ed t r act s , an d exc ept for t he t r act 6 adjoini ng t he ap p el l ant ’ s res i d ence, t he t ract s wi l l al ways be t hreat ened by f l o o d i ng.

T he i ssue s o f

wh ethe r t he 1 9 9 8 co nse nt jud gm en t i s re s ju d ic a ta , o r w h e the r th e d e fen d a n t i s c o llate ra lly 7
esto p p ed , o r wh ethe r he i s b arre d b y l ac he s. -4- might do, or w hat the TWRA would do with respec t to this property , is purely speculative and of littl e or no pr obative value

. It is the clear poli cy of l aw that if rea l estate owned i n common is capa ble of a just divi sion,
a s al e fo r partition i s not warr anted. See, Glenn v. Gresham , 602 S.W .2d 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980). B ut the owner of a fee interest in property is entitled to have the entire pr operty sold if (1) the pre mises are of such de scription that partition thereof cannot e quitably

be made , or (2) wher e the pr e mis e s a

re su c h th a t it wo uld be ma nif e stl y fo r the a dv a nta g e of the pa rt ie s th a t th e sa me sh ou ld be sold instead of pa

rtitioned. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 27-201.
A re al e s tate e xp e r t, Sa m Wa r d , w h o n e g o ti a te d th e s a le to th e Co n s e r v a n c y for a
co m m i s s i on, testified that the tra ct could not be e quitably partitioned. Other

expert witnesses testified that the tra ct could be pa rtitioned into six trac ts of equa l acr eag e. About 85% of the land, 6 bounded in larg e part by the m eande rs of North Chickamaug a Cree k, is a flood plain. The 19- acr e trac t [ one of six] adjoining the defe ndant’s re sidence , is upland and unaf fec t ed b y t h e flooding of No rth Ch ic ka maug a

Cr e e k. I t re qu ir e s no expe rt ise to c on c lud e that th is u planda c re a g e is the mos t va lua bleof the six tr a c ts.
The Cha n c e ll o r

ma d e a s p e c if ic f in d in g th a t th e p r o p e r ty

c o u ldn o t b e p ar ti ti o n e d ink in d. The evidenc e does not pr eponder ate a g ainst this finding. He pointed out that a “g oodly portion” of the property was in the flood plain, and that public acc ess to some of the proposed trac ts would be dif fi c ult a ndinc on ve nie nt. He fu rthe r fo un d tha t a partit ion wo uld no t be e qu ita ble be c aus e it w ou ld probably result in the “non- sal e” of the prope rty

of the other

(five) siblings. The latter finding ref lected the essential posi tion of the appe llant, throug hout the tortured history of this case , that he
so u g h tt o h a v e t h e 1 9

- a c r e tr a c tc ar v e d o u ta n d a w a r d e d t o h i m
. T h e ap p e l l a n td i d n o tc arr y h is burden of

proving by

a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e that the p ro p er t y could equitably

be partitioned in kind.
The mere fac t that the land may be partitioned among the co- tenants is not conclusive that the sale should not be ordere d; if, by partition, the value of all share s would be less than the va lue of the tra ct as a

whole, then the pa

rtition would be manifestly inequitable, and a sale shall be orde red. Medley v. Medle

y , 4 54 S.W. 2d14 2 ( Te nn . 1 96 9) ; Go be r v . Bur rus , 726 S.W .2d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). This principle of

equity is peculiarly

applicable to this case.
Be cause we ha ve d et ermined that the resolving issue is whether the acr eag e should be divided, we do not re ach the is s u es arising from the 1998 “ J udg ment Orde r”. The a ppellant 7 questions the validity

of the Conservancy ’s offe r to purcha se the property , which the Chanc ellor found was fair and rea sonable, and we do not r eac h this issue. So f ar a s the rec ord re veals, this offe r-5-

wa s e xtan t w he n th e c a se wa s trie d, a ndthe Con se rv a nc y , a pa rty to the c a se , did no t w ith dr a w i t. The issue pre sented by

the appe llees - whe ther the Chanc ellor er red in not re quiring the defe ndant to pay

his share of

the real estate commissi on - is resolved f avora bly to the appellee s. The Chance llor did not elaborate his rationale in onerating the appellee s with the entire oblig ation of Mr. Ward’s commission, and none oc curs to us. The mer e fa ct that the appe llant did not agr ee to the listi ng with Mr. Ward is not controlling; he w ill benefit on an e ven basis with his s i b lings a nd there fore should pay his proportionate share of the expenses. Ac cording ly , the judg ment is modified to require the def

endant to pay

one-sixth of the commissi on.
We conclude that th ee v id e n c edoes not preponde rate ag ainst the judg ment, which is aff irmed
a s mo dif ie d. Th e c os ts o n a

pp e a l are a sse sse d to the app e llant.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM H. INMAN, SENI OR J UDGE