I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CA- 0 1 7 0 5 - S CT BET TY L OCKHART v. R IC H A R D C O L L IN

S , P E G G Y C O L L IN

S , B O L IN HAMI L TON A ND OR EN

E HA M I L TON ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 02/ 2010 TR I A L J U D G E: H O N . J A CQ U ELI N E EST ES M A SK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ONROE COUNTY CHA NCERY COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: CARTE R DOBBS , J R. ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEES : M AR THA BO ST S TEGA LL NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 02/ 16/ 2012 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 12/ 22/ 2011 M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . T h e m o ti o n for r eh ea ri n g i s de n ied. T h e o ri g inal op inio n is w ith d ra w n , an d th is o p inion is sub sti tuted there for. ¶2. J . C . and B etty L ockhartow ned a l i f e es t at e i n an undi vi ded one- f our th i nt er es ti n 160 acr es i n M onr oe C ount y, M i ssi s s i ppi . A f t erthe dea th of

J . C . , B etty L ockhartf i l ed a compl ai ntt o part i t i on by publ i c s al e the l and thatshe s har ed w i th heri n- l aw s , B ol i n and O r ene H ami l t on. T he H ami l t ons al s o ow n a l i f e est at e in t he sa m e pr operty, and they
m ai nt ai n the pr operty as thei rhom es t ead. A ddi t i onal l y, L ockharts ued R i char d and Peggy

### 2

C o ll ins, w h o h av e a futu re interest i n the p rop erty a s re m a ind erm en . T h e tri al co u rt di s m i s s ed Lockhar t ’ s pet i t i on, and Lockhar tappeal ed. B eca us e L ockhartf ai l ed t o m eett he s t atut ory r equi s i t es f

ora part i t i on s al e, w e af f i r m the cha ncel l or ’ s rul i ng. PERTI NENT CO NVEYA NCES ¶3. T he fol l ow i ng con vey ances reveal the p art i es’ curr ent i nter est s i n the 160 acres . ¶4. I n 1947, R . T . R ay conveye d the pr operty t o W . E . L ock hart and B ol i n H ami l t on as t enant s i n comm on. W . E . w as the f atherof O r ene H ami l t on and J . C . L ockhart , an d t he f ather - i n- l aw of

B ol i n H ami l t on. I n hi s L as tW i l l and Test ament , W . E . devi s ed hi s undi vi ded one- hal f i nt er es tt o hi s tw o chi l dr en, J. C . and O r ene. A tt hatpoi nti n t i m e, B ol i n H ami l t on hel d an undi vi ded one- hal f f ee- s i m pl e i nt er es t , and O r ene a nd J . C . eac h hel d an undi vi ded o n e -f o u rt h fe e -s im p le in te re s t in th e 1 6 0 a c re s . ¶5. I n 2007, J . C . L ockhart and hi s w i f e B etty conveye d hi s f

ee- s i m pl e i nt er es t t o hi s s on (B et ty’s s t epson ), Joel L ock hart . T his con vey ance reserved a l i fe es t at e i n the L o ck h art s. A r ound the s ame t i m e, B ol i n and O r ene H ami l t on conveye d thei r com bi ned thr ee- f our ths fee -si m p le i n terest i n the p rop erty to th eir d au g h ter, P eg g y C o ll ins. T h ey also rese rve d a li fe e sta te in th e ir c o m b in e d th re e -fo u rth s in ter e st. In 2 0 0 8 , Jo e l L o c k h a rt c o n v e y e d h is
u n d ivide d o n e-fo u rth fe e -sim p le i n terest t o R icha rd a n d P eg g y C o ll ins, subject t o the lif e es t at e o f hi s s t epmot her , B etty L ockhart . Peggy C ol l i ns then qui t cl ai m ed herr emai nder in te re s t in th e p ro p e rt y to h e rs e lf a n d h e r h u s b a n d , R ic h a rd . ¶6. A ccor di ngl y, Lockhartha s a l i f e es t at e i n an undi vi ded one- f our th i nt er es t ; B ol i n and O r ene H ami l t on have a l i f e es t at e i n the r emai ni ng undi vi ded three- f our ths i nt er es t ; and R ic h a rd a n d P e g g y C o llin s h a v e th e re m a in d e r o f t h e e n tir e 1 6 0 a c re s .

### Sectio n 1 1-2 1-3 pro vid es that “[p ]arti ti o no f landheldbyjoint tenants, tenants in 1 

### commo n, o r cop arceners, h avin g anestate inp ossessio n or a rig ht of po ssessionan d no t in re ver si on or r em ainder , whether the joint int er es t be in thefre ehol d or in a ter m of ye ar s not le ss than fi ve ( 5), may be m adeby judgm ent of the c hanc er

y court of that county in whi ch thela nds or som e part the re of, aresit uat ed . . . .” Mis s. Code Ann. § 11-21- 3 (Re v. 2004) . Sect i on 11- 21- 1( 2) pr ovi des that“[ h] om es t ead pr operty exempt ed f r om exec ut i on 2 thati s ow ned by s pous es s hal l be s ubj ectt o pa r t i t i on pur s uantt o the pr ovi s i ons of thi s s ect i on onl y, and nototherw i s e. ” Subs ect i on ( 1) of Sect i on 11- 21- 1 pr ovi des that“[ p] art i t i on of lan d h e ld b y jo in t ten a n ts, ten a n ts in c o m m o n , an d c o p a rc e n e rs, m a y b e m a d e b y a g re e m e n t, w hi ch sha l l be evi dence d by a w r i t i ng, si gned by t he par t i es . . . . ” 

### Mis s. CodeAnn. § 11- 21- 1(2) (Re v. 2004) . 3 P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶7. W i th t he dea th of herhusband i n 2007, B etty L ockhartl ef tthe pr operty and f

i l ed a compl ai ntagai ns tthe H ami l t ons and the C ol l i ns es (the “D ef endant s ”) s eeki ng t o par t i t i on by publ i c s al e the 160 ac r es i n w hi ch s he has a l i f e es t at e. T he D efendan t s opposed the compl ai nt , and as s ert ed thatL ockhartl acke d s t andi ng t o s eek part i t i on by s al e. A ddi t i onal l y, the D ef endant s as s ert ed thatt he pr operty w as nots ubj ectt o part i t i on, s i nce i tw as h o m estea d ed b y the H am il ton s. T h e D efe n d an ts fi led a m o ti o n to d ism iss L o ck h art’s c o m p la in t, w h ic h th e c h a n c e llo r g ra n te d , in p a rt . ¶8 . I n a v e r y de t a i l e d or de r , the c ha nc e l l orf ou nd tha tLoc kh a r tha d s t andi ng t o s eek part i t i on un der M i ssi ssi pp i C ode Sect i on 11- 21- 3, becaus e both L ockhartand the H am i l t on s, 1 t ogetheras cot enant s , shar e a pr es entri ghtt o pos s es s and us e the pr operty. T he cha ncel l or f ur therf ound thatL ockhartw as notent i t l ed t o part i t i on by s al e, unl es s by w r i t t en agr eement of the part i es underSect i on 11-21- 1( 2) , beca us e the pr operty w as hom es t eade d by t he 2 Ha mi l t o n s . An d s h e no t e d t h a t , i n th e e v e n ta p a r t i t i o n o f th e p r o p e r ty s h o u l d b e c o me

### Mis si ss ippiCode Sec ti on 11-21-11 (Re v. 2004) provi des for a partition s al e whe re 3 

### a chance ll or det er

mines ( 1) “a

s al e of the l ands , or

any part the re of, wil l be tt er

prom otethe interest o f all parties th an a p artitionin k ind ;” o r (2 ) “anequal div isioncann ot b e made[.]” Est ate of Dykesv. Est

ate of Wi ll iams , 864 So. 2d 926, 930 ( Mis s. 2003). 4

### Id . 5 

### Cheeks v

. Herringt

on , 52 3 S o . 2d10 33 , 10 35 (Miss. 1 98 8); Daughtrey v. 6 

### Daughtrey , 474 So. 2d 598, 601 ( Mis s. 1985). Mis s. Code Ann. § 91-1- 23 (Re v. 2004) . 7 

### 4 avai l abl e, a s al e of

t he propert y w as notw arr ant ed underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 21- 11. 3 ¶9. L ockhartappea l s and cl ai m s thatthe cha nc e l l ore rr ed i n rul i ng thatSect i on 11- 21- 1( 2) act s t o pr eventpar t i t i on, unl es s by w r i t t en agr eement , w hen the part i t i on i s notbetw een s p o u s e s , b u t, r a th e r, c o u p le s . DI S CU S S I ON Standar d of

r evi ew ¶10 . T h is C ou rt w i l l no t dis turb a chan cel l or’ s fi nd i ng s of fact un l ess suc h fi n d ing s are m ani f es t l y w r ong orcl ear l y err oneous . B utw e r evi ew al l ques t i ons of l aw de novo. 4 5 W het her part i t i on by sal e can occ ur by decree of t he chancery c ourt w here m ore t han on e coupl e share a ri ght to us e and poss es s t he propert y. ¶ 1 1 . In M iss iss ip p i, th e rig h t t o p a rtiti o n is ab so lu te, h o w e v e r in c o n v e n ien t itm a y b e , w ith the exc ept i on of t he l i m i t at i on pl ace d on hom es t ead pr operty. T hi s s t atut ory exce pt i on, 6 pr ovi ded i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 91- 1- 23 ( R ev. 2004) , pr event s a f or ced pa r t i t i on of hom es t ead pr operty of a s ur vi vi ng s pouse w ho i s us i ng and occ upyi ng the pr oper ty. 7 O th e rw is e , p a rt itio n o f l a n d “ h e ld b y jo in t te n a n ts , t enant s i n com m on , or copa rceners ,

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 11-21- 3 (Re v. 2004) . 8 B lack’s La w D i ct i on ary 1 5 0 6 (8th ed . 2 0 0 4 ). 9 

### Black v. Washi

ngton , 65 Mi ss . 60 ( 1887). 10

### Bla ck’s La w D iction ary1505 (8th ed. 2004). 11 

### 5 havi ng an es t at e i n pos s es s i on ora r i ghtof poss es s i on . . . m ay be m ade by j udgm entof the c h a n c e ry c o u rt o f t h a t c o u n ty in w h ic h th e la n d s o r s o m e p a rt th e re o f, a re s itu a te d .” 8 ¶ 1 2 . L o c k h a rt’s c o m p lain t sp e c ifica lly p ra y s fo r th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt to p a rtiti o n th e lan d in ques t i on b y pu bl i c s a l e a nd t o di vi de the p r oc e e ds a mong he r , the Hami l t on s , and t he C oll i nses. A s ow ners of a l i fe es t at e, bo th L ock hartand the H am il ton s have a ri gh tt o u se and pos s es s the pr operty f orthe dur at i on of

thei rr espect i ve l i ves . O n the otherhand, t he C ol l i ns es ar e r emai nderm en and do nothave a r i ghtt o us e and pos s es s t he property. T he sta tu te a llo w s fo r p a rtiti o n o n ly a s b e tw e e n “ . . . ten a n ts in c o m m o n . . . h a v in g a n e sta te in p o s s e s s io n o r a ri g h t o f p o s s e s s io n . . . .” ¶1 3. A t enanc y i n c omm on o c c ur s when “ tw o orm or e per s ons , i n equal or unequal undi vi ded s har es , ” have a n equal ri ghtt o pos s es s the pr operty. M or eover , ourcas el aw has 9
re c o g n ize d th a t: I ti s notes s ent i al t o t he r i ghtof part i t i on thatthe cot enant s s hal l have e s t at es thatar e equa l . O ne m ay have a t erm , anotheran es t at e f orl i f e, and anotheran e sta te in fe e . A ll th a t is n e c e ss a ry is th a t th e y sh a ll b e c o ten a n ts o f w h a t is p r o p o s e d t o b e p a r t i t i o n e d . A r em ai nderorr eve rs i on wi l lnot be par t i t i oned, butthatdoes nothi nderan est at e i n pos s es s i on f r om bei ng part i t i oned among the co-t enant s , and the f actt hatther e i s a r emai nderorr ever s i on i s nota bar t o part i t i on among t hos e havi ng an i nt er es ti n pos s es s i on. 10 “C ot enant ” i s def

i ned as a “t enanc y w i th tw o orm or e co- ow ner s w ho have uni ty of pos s es s i on, ” s uch as a j oi ntt enanc y ora t enanc y i n comm on. Fur ther , the manneri n w hi ch 11

### Cheeks , 523 So. 2d at 1036. 12 

### “I t i s g e ne r a l ly he l d that a l i f e t e nant o r t e nant f or y e ar s c an m a i nt a i n as uit for 13 

### parti ti on as am ong his or he r c ote nant s f or l if e or for years . Theholde r of

a li feest at e or

an es tatefor years cannot s ue the re mainde rm en or re ver si oner s f

or partition in theabs enc e of statuto ry autho rization .” 68 C.J.S . Partition § 69 (2011) . Camp v. Stoke

s , 41 So. 3d 685, 686 ( Mis s. 2010). 14 

### 6 the p art i t i on i s accom pli shed is determ i ned by on e’s ri gh tt o p ossess i on . U nd er the fi rs t 12 par agr aph of

Sect i on 11- 21- 3, part i t i on i s a pos s es s ory pr ocee di ng onl y. T hi s m eans L ockharthas s t andi ng onl y t o s eek a p art i t i on agai ns tthe H ami l t ons as ow ner s of t he adj oi ni ng l i f

e es t at e and notagai ns tthe f ee of the es t at e ow ned by the C ol l i ns es as r emai nderm en. 13 ¶14. N ext , beca us e L ockhart had s t andi ng t o pr ocee d agai ns t the H ami l t ons f orpart i t i on, w e addr es s w hetherSect i on 11- 21- 1 i s appl i cabl e. Sect i on 11- 21- 1 pr ovi des t hat“[ p] ar t i t i on of l and hel d by j oi ntt enant s , t enant s i n comm on, and copa r cene r s , m ay be made by agr eement , w hi ch s hal l be evi dence d by a w r i t i ng, si gned by t he par t i es . . . . ” Subs ect i on (2 ) of Se cti o n 11 -21 -1 states th at “[ h ] o m estea d pro p erty ex em p ted from ex ec u ti o n th a t is
ow nedby spo uses s hal l be s ubj ectt o pa r t i t i on pur s uantt o the pr ovi s i ons of thi s s ect i on onl y, a n d n o t o th e rw ise .” A p lain re a d in g o f th e se tw o sta tu tes re v e a ls th a t w h e n p ro p e rty is o w n e d b y sp o u se s, a n d th o se sp o u se s m a in tain th e p ro p e rty a s th e ir h o m e ste a d , p a rtiti o n is avai l abl e onl y by w r i t t en agr eementbet w een the par t i es . “W hen a s t atut e i s pl ai n on i t s f ace , th e re is n o ro o m fo r s ta tu to ry c o n s tru c tio n .” 14 ¶1 5 . W e c an n o t agre e w ith the c h an ce ll o r’s ap p li ca ti o n of th is statu te, be ca u se th e e n ti re par cel of pr operty w as ow ned by the H ami l t ons and Lockhar t , notby s pous es . I n Solom on

### Solomon v . Sol omon , 192 So. 10 (Mi ss . 1939) . 15 

### Id .; see also Cart

er v. Bre wton , 396 So. 2d 617, 618 (Mi ss . 1981) (quoting Dil lon 16 

### v. Ha ckett, 37 So. 2d 744, 746 ( Mis s. 1948)) . Id . 17 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 11-21- 11 (Re v. 2004) . 18 

### Overs treet v

. Over st reet, 692 So. 2d 88, 90- 91 (Mi ss . 1997) . 19 

### 7 v. Solom on , thi s C our thel d that“w her e the w i f e of a t enantin com m on ow ni ng an 15
u n d iv id e d inte re st in lan d , o c c u p ies the lan d as a h o m e ste a d , th e o c c u p a tio n o f th e p ro p e rty by herdoes notenl ar ge heri nt er es tther ei n as agai ns therhus band’ s c ot enant s , butthe l and i s atal l t i m es s ubj ectt o part i t i on by the cot enant s . ” H er e, the factthatthe H ami l t ons 16 occupy pa r tof

the l and as a hom es t ead does note nl ar ge thei rthr ee- f our th i nt er es ti n the l and agai ns tthei rcot enant , L ockhart ’ s one- f our ths i nt er es t . R ather , the pr ot ect i ons undert he hom es t ead s t atut es ar e r es pect i ve t o e ach cot enant ’ s i nt er es ti n the pr operty. A ccor di ngl y, 17 the l and i s s ubj ectt o part i t i on by L ockhart , abs ents om e s t atut ory exce pt i on. ¶ 1 6 . N e v e rth e les s, th e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t, i n th e e v e n t a p a rtiti o n o f th e su b jec t p ro p e rty s houl d become avai l abl e, a sa l e of t he pr operty i n t he f

i r s ti ns t ance w as notw arr ant ed under S ect i on 11 -21-11. T his st atute r equ i res that, before the co urtm ay o rdera sal e i n the f i rs t i ns t ance , i tm us tf

i nd t hata s al e of

the l ands w i l l bett erpr om ote t he i nt er es t s of al l part i es t ha n a p a r t i t i on i n ki nd , o rthe c ou r tmus tb e c on vi nc e d tha ta n e qu a l d i vi s i on c a nn otbe
m a d e . L o c k h a rt b e a rs th e b u rd e n to p ro v e th a t th e s tatu to ry re q u isites fo r a p a rtiti o n sa le

18
ar e met . The r ecor d i s de voi d of a ny pr oof

r egar di ng ei thers t atut ory r equi s i t e. A nd s i nce 19 the cha ncel l orl acks the “a uthor i ty t o decr ee a s al e unl es s the s t atut ory r equi s i t es ar e ‘ cl ear l y’

### Un kn own H eirs at L awof B lair v. B lair , 601 So. 2d 848, 850 ( Mis s. 1992). 20 

### 8 m e t a n d a ‘ s u b s ta n tia l r e a s o n ’ e x is ts f o r c h o o s in g p a rt itio n b y s a le o v e r p a rt itio n in k in d ,” 20
w e c a n n o t h o ld h e r i n e rr o r. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 7 . S e c tio n 1 1 -2 1 -1 (2 ) i s ina p p lica b le to th e p re se n t fa c ts. N e v e rth e les s, w e a g re e w ith th e c h a n c e l l o r ’ s a l t e r n a t i v e ru l i n g . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m. ¶ 1 8 . AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AN D D I CKI NS ON, P . J J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR.