Court Opinion

ID: 9771429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:43:14.447028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:31.294948
License: Public Domain

PREWITT, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. There is, as the principal opinion states, considerable authority for holding that filing a petition for partition does not destroy a joint tenancy. As there appears to be no Missouri authori*147ty on this question, this court is free to hold, and should hold otherwise.
Plaintiffs decedent had the right to destroy the joint tenancy by conveyance or partition. Remax of Blue Springs v. Vajda & Co., Inc., 708 S.W.2d 804, 806 (Mo.App.1986); Johnson v. Woodard, 356 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Mo.App.1962). He elected to proceed by partition. Had he made a conveyance, apparently this appeal would not have occurred.
I believe this court should hold that filing a suit for partition destroyed the joint tenancy and the action should survive. Where a party has a legal right affecting his property and exercises that right by filing a law suit, it should not be denied by death of that party. To hold otherwise encourages delay, particularly where the plaintiff is older or in ill health. Certain personal actions such as dissolution where reconciliation often occurs may appropriately be treated differently. The delay here appears to be attributed to the decedent, but that should not change the result.
The principal opinion refers to Cobb v. Gilmer, 365 F.2d 931, 933 (D.C.Cir.1966), noting that it says if the power to demand partition survived the death of a joint tenant, his representative could sue for partition thereby destroying the element of sur-vivorship. That does not necessarily follow. If there is no partition suit pending at the time of death, then survivorship exists and the property passes to the surviving joint tenant. Electing to convey and conveying immediately destroys the survivor-ship. Electing to, and filing a suit for partition should do the same if the suit is pursued by the plaintiff or his estate to final judgment. If the suit is not, then the suit should be treated the same as if it was never filed. Plaintiff’s personal representative wants to pursue the suit and should be allowed to do so.
I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.