Court Opinion

ID: 9731193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:37:47.941023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:15.318485
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE WEBBER, specially concurring: I concur in the result reached in the principal opinion. However, insofar as it appears to indicate that any parol partition will be binding upon subsequent title holders, I disagree. The outcome of the instant case is determined only as an evidentiary matter. The trial court found as a fact that the plaintiff knew of the prior parol partition between the Golden brothers, and this fact is not seriously disputed by the plaintiff. In this regard the instant case is factually close to Gomel. In all the other cases cited in the principal opinion there existed direct privity between the parol partitioner and the party seeking or resisting partition, generally by way of inheritance of devise. Only in Gomel was the court concerned with a purchaser. The validity of a parol partition is beyond dispute. The only question is who may be bound by it. I conceive the rule to be that a purchaser of the undivided interest will be bound if there exists clear and convincing evidence of his knowledge. Those in privity with the parol partitioner will be bound as a matter of law.