Court Opinion

ID: 9682576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:14:11.390357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.156256
License: Public Domain

PRESLAR, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent, and would affirm the judgment of the learned trial judge.
There is no contention that appellant was induced to contract by fraud, over-reaching, undue influence, or other excuse recognized by the law to escape contractual obligations. There is no hint of any wrong in the inducement or execution of the contract. There is no attempt to avoid the contract. So long as the contract stands, appellant is bound by it, and under it she has contracted away her right to partition.
As noted by the majority, the authorities are consistent in denying partition when to do so would abrogate contractual rights. 44 Tex.Jur.2d § 5, p. 251; 132 A.L.R. 666. That, says the majority, has no application here because there is no estate or contractual interest involved to be increased or diminished. Not so, for the estate created in the appellee by the agreement was that, henceforth, he would “hold and own” the property with appellant as a joint tenant; and that upon the death of appellant he would get her share of the property. The relief sought by the plaintiff-appellant was to have the property sold and the proceeds divided. This clearly diminishes the estate of the appellee and certainly diminishes his contractual interest. The “contractual interest” or rights conferred by the agreement are that the survivor will get the other party’s interest upon the death of such party, and that thenceforth, from the mak*348ing of such agreement the parties will hold and own the property as joint tenants. Those rights established by the contract are, to say the least, “diminished” by sale of the property. That is an abrogation of contractual rights and is contrary to the above-cited law. It is also contrary to the law as enunciated in Warner v. Winn, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 747 (ref. n. r. e.), and Elrod v. Foster, Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W. 2d 339, (wr. ref.), that an agreement against partition will be implied when a granting of such relief would destroy the estate sought to be partitioned. The agreement before us does not expressly provide against partition, but the relief sought is in contravention of the terms of the agreement, so that the implication is that the agreement is against the form of partition sought. As noted by the majority, the law is well settled that partition will not be granted at the suit of one in violation of his own agreement, the agreement it is said, operating as an estoppel against the right to partition. From their correct quotation of the law from Davis v. Davis (supra), the majority takes off on a tangent as to the meaning of “reasonable time”. In doing so, they ignore a subsequent statement from the quotation that partition will be denied during the period specified by agreement of the parties. In the case before us, partition is sought during the period specified by the agreement of the parties. The period specified was during the lifetime of both. The record does not give us evidence to determine if that was “reasonable”, for it is silent as to their ages, life expectancies, and state of health. They may have contracted knowing or expecting that their days were numbered. We should not speculate otherwise as a grounds for reversal.
The majority opinion recognizes that a sale of the property would be subject to the propositions advanced in this dissent. The effect of a sale under the law enunciated is not discussed and not determined. Rather, the position is taken that even though partition by sale is the relief sought, such is not binding on the court, “and a partitioning in kind may be decreed”. That is the decided case law, but if the remand is for the purpose of allowing partition in kind, that is for relief not wanted by the plaintiff-appellant. She specifically alleged that the property was not subject to partition in kind, her prayer at the conclusion of her pleading asking only that the court order the property sold and the proceeds divided. Rule 434, T.R.C.P., provides, in part:
“Provided, first, that no judgment shall be reversed on appeal and a new trial ordered in any cause on the ground that the trial court has committed an error of law in the course of the trial, unless the appellate court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of amounted to such a denial of the rights of the appellant as was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment * * (Emphasis mine).
Query: Is the denial of a right not wanted reversible error?
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.