Opinion ID: 1648790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Appellants Have a Right to Bring Their Partition Actions.

Text: In the instant cases, appellants filed appeals from the district courts' rulings that sustained appellees' motions for summary judgment and dismissed their partition actions. The district courts determined that as a result of the first opportunity to buy language in the estate documents, appellants' partition actions were premature. Appellants challenge those rulings. For reasons other than those articulated by appellants in their briefs, we conclude that appellants had a right to bring their partition actions and that the district courts erred in dismissing appellants' partition actions. Accordingly, we reverse the district courts' orders sustaining appellees' motions for summary judgment and dismissing appellants' complaints and remand the causes for further proceedings consistent herewith. [5] Initially, we note that the purpose of a partition action is to divide a jointly owned interest in real property so that each owner may enjoy and possess in severalty. Dixon v. Dixon, 189 Neb. 212, 202 N.W.2d 180 (1972); Hartman v. Drake, 166 Neb. 87, 87 N.W.2d 895 (1958). This court has long recognized that when `a case is fairly brought within the law authorizing a partition, the right to partition is imperative and absolutely binding upon courts of equity. . . . To invoke this equitable remedy is a matter of right, and not of mere grace.' Oliver v. Lansing, 50 Neb. 828, 836-37, 70 N.W. 369, 371 (1897) (quoting Hill v. Reno et al., 112 Ill. 154 (1883)). Accord Yunghans v. O'Toole, 199 Neb. 317, 321, 258 N.W.2d 810, 813 (1977) (stating that [o]nce joint title in real estate has been established, partition may be had as a matter of law). [6] In ruling that appellants' partition actions were premature, both district courts relied upon Peterson v. Damoude, 98 Neb. 370, 152 N.W. 786 (1915), in which this court affirmed a lower court's ruling dismissing a partition action as premature when, under the terms of a will devising property, the testator provided that the `real estate . . . not be disposed or divided . . . prior to' a specific date. Similarly, in Wenzel v. Wenzel, 174 Neb. 61, 69, 115 N.W.2d 788, 793 (1962), we affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a partition action when the will devising the property contained a provision which essentially prohibited the disposal or the division of the real property for 5 years, stating that while [o]rdinarily, the right to partition property is one of right and not a matter of grace[, t]he right to partition . . . may be restricted by the terms of a testator's will where the restriction is reasonable. See, also, Freeland v. Andersen, 114 Neb. 822, 211 N.W. 167 (1926) (enforcing on appeal testamentary restriction on partition which restriction lasted for life of testator's widow). In each of these cases, the estate document devising the property contained a restriction that effectively prohibited the disposal or the division of the real property for a reasonable quantifiable time period, and thus, a partition action brought before the expiration of that time period was deemed premature. In contrast to these decisions, however, the estate documents under which title of the subject property was conveyed to Nana Nell and Janet do not contain a temporal restriction on the division or disposal of the subject property. Instead, the controlling estate documents convey the subject property to Nana Nell and Janet while also recognizing the potentiality of a sale. Both estate documents contain the following language: [I]f my daughters . . . desire to sell this land, they must give my son, Lonnie R. Cumming, first opportunity to buy it. Thus, unlike the defined restrictions on the disposal or the division of real property contained in Peterson and Wenzel, the estate documents in the instant cases do not preclude a sale at Nana Nell's or Janet's insistence. Rather, as we discuss in greater detail below, the estate documents grant to Lonnie a first right to buy the subject property in the event the property is sold. [7] The interpretation of the words in a will or trust is a question of law. See, In re Estate of Johnson, 260 Neb. 91, 615 N.W.2d 98 (2000); Smith v. Smith, 246 Neb. 193, 517 N.W.2d 394 (1994). A partition action is an action in equity and is reviewable by an appellate court de novo on the record. Gustafson v. Gustafson, 239 Neb. 448, 476 N.W.2d 819 (1991). On appeal from an equity action, an appellate court, as to questions of law, is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the conclusion reached by the trial court. Detter v. Miracle Hills Animal Hosp., 269 Neb. 164, 691 N.W.2d 107 (2005). With the foregoing principles in mind, we conclude that nothing in the language of the estate documents at issue in these cases restricts Nana Nell's or Janet's right to partition the subject property. We conclude that both district courts erred as a matter of law in interpreting the first opportunity to buy language contained in the estate documents as a restriction on appellants' right to bring an action to partition the subject property. Because the estate documents contain no restriction on appellants' right to bring a partition action, the district courts erred in sustaining appellees' motions for summary judgment and dismissing the respective complaints.