No. 80-158
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1980
VIOLA A. LAWRENCE,
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
-vs-
S A O LEE DONOVAN,
H R N
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f Lewis and C l a r k ,
The H o n o r a b l e Gordon R. B e n n e t t , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
Lloyd J. Skedd and J . Mayo A s h l e y , H e l e n a , Montana
F o r Respondent :
G a l t a n d Swanberg, H e l e n a , Montana
Submitted on B r i e f s : August 1 3 , 1980
Decided: Q @ T 2 2 1986
Clerk
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f
t h e Court.
Plaintiff-respondent, V i o l a A. Lawrence, brought t h i s
a c t i o n s e e k i n g p a r t i t i o n of real property i n the Lewis & Clark
County D i s t r i c t Court. A t a p r e t r i a l conference, the parties
w e r e a s k e d t o b r i e f t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f was l e g a l l y
entitled to a partition. The c o u r t t h e n t r e a t e d t h e m a t t e r as a
m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t and g r a n t e d summary j u d g m e n t t o t h e
p l a i n t i f f c o n c l u d i n g t h a t s h e was e n t i t l e d t o a p a r t i t i o n .
D e f e n d a n t s S h a r o n L e e D o n o v a n and V i c t o r i a Rae R o s b a r s k y a p p e a l .
R e s p o n d e n t V i o l a L a w r e n c e ( f o r m e r l y Amundson) and h e r
h u s b a n d H a r r y Amundson a c q u i r e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n as
t e n a n t s i n common i n 1 9 4 1 , e a c h a c q u i r i n g a n u n d i v i d e d o n e - h a l f
interest. T h e p r o p e r t y c o n s i s t s o f 2 5 4 a c r e s on H a u s e r L a k e , a
h o u s e t h e r e o n and o t h e r i m p r o v e m e n t s .
H a r r y Amundson d i e d i n 1 9 7 7 . His w i l l devised a l i f e
e s t a t e i n t h e p r o p e r t y t o h i s w i f e and t h e r e m a i n d e r t o t h e i r
children, a p p e l l a n t Sharon L e e Donovan, a p p e l l a n t V i c t o r i a Rae
Rosbarsky, and C l e b e r Amundson, who i s n o t a p a r t y t o t h e a p p e a l .
V i o l a L a w r e n c e now s e e k s p a r t i t i o n o f t h e r e a l e s t a t e so
t h a t s h e may h o l d i n f e e s i m p l e h e r u n d i v i d e d o n e - h a l f interest
a c q u i r e d i n 1941. She d o e s n o t s e e k p a r t i t i o n o f t h e o t h e r u n d i -
vided one-half i n t e r e s t h e l d b y H a r r y Amundson a t t h e t i m e o f h i s
d e a t h i n w h i c h she a c q u i r e d a l i f e e s t a t e w i t h t h e r e m a i n d e r t o
t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n under t h e t e r m s o f Amundson's w i l l .
The a p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t V i o l a Lawrence i s n o t a t e n a n t
i n common a n d t h e r e f o r e s h e l a c k s s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n .
They f u r t h e r contended t h a t under t h e circumstances o f t h i s case
p a r t i t i o n would v i o l a t e p u b l i c p o l i c y .
The a p p e l l a n t s a s s e r t t h a t p a r t i t i o n i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n
t h e p r e s e n t case, urging t h a t the parties are not cotenants
w i t h i n s e c t i o n 70-29-101, MCA, and t h a t V i o l a L a w r e n c e i s n o t a
t e n a n t i n common w i t h i n s e c t i o n 7 0 - 2 9 - 1 0 4 . These t w o s t a t u t e s
provide:
"70-29-101. A c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n a u t h o r i z e d - -
who may b r i n g . w h e n s e v e r a l c o t e n a n t s h o l d and
a r e i n p o s s e s s i o n o f r e a l p r o p e r t y as j o i n t
t e n a n t s ' o r t e n a n t s i n common,' i n w h i c h o n e o r
more o f them have an e s t a t e o f i n h e r i t a n c e o r
f o r l i f e o r l i v e s o r f o r y e a r s , a n a c t i o n may be
b r o u g h t by one o r more o f such p e r s o n s f o r a
p a r t i t i o n thereof, according t o the respective
r i g h t s o f t h e p e r s o n s i n t e r e s t e d t h e r e i n , and
f o r a s a l e o f such p r o p e r t y o r a p a r t t h e r e o f i f
i t a p p e a r s t h a t a p a r t i t i o n c a n n o t be made
w i t h o u t a g r e a t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e owners."
"70-29-104. Who m u s t b e p a r t i e s - - e r m i s s i b l e
plaintiffs. m T f X l o w i n g m u s t Pbe p a r t i e s
t o an a c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n :
"(a) e v e r y p e r s o n h a v i n g an u n d i v i d e d share, in
p o s s e s s i o n o r o t h e r w i s e , i n t h e p r o p e r t y as
tenant i n fee, f o r l i f e , o r f o r years;
"(b) every person e n t i t l e d t o t h e reversion,
r e m a i n d e r , o r i n h e r i t a n c e o f an u n d i v i d e d s h a r e ,
a f t e r the determination of a particular estate
therein;
"(c) e v e r y p e r s o n who b y a n y c o n t i n g e n c y c o n -
tained i n a devise o r grant o r otherwise i s o r
may become e n t i t l e d t o a b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n
an undivided share thereof;
"(d) e v e r y p e r s o n h a v i n g an i n c h o a t e r i g h t o f
d o w e r i n an u n d i v i d e d s h a r e i n t h e p r o p e r t y ; a n d
"(e) e v e r y p e r s o n h a v i n g a r i g h t o f dower i n
t h e p r o p e r t y o r any p a r t t h e r e o f w h i c h has n o t
b e e n admeasured.
"(2) B u t no p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n a j o i n t t e n a n t o r
a t e n a n t i n common o f t h e p r o p e r t y s h a l l be a
p l a i n t i f f i n the action."
We n o t e a s p l i t o f a u t h o r i t y i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s on t h e
i s s u e o f w h e t h e r a p e r s o n h o l d i n g an u n d i v i d e d o n e - h a l f interest
i n p a r t o f a t r a c t o f r e a l e s t a t e and a l i f e e s t a t e i n t h e
remainder o f the t r a c t i s l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d t o p a r t i t i o n . The
cases d e n y i n g p a r t i t i o n under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e based upon a
l a c k o f u n i t y o f possession. P a b s t B r e w i n g Co. v. Melms ( 1 9 0 0 ) ,
105 Wis. 455, 8 1 N.W. 882. Cases w h i c h a l l o w p a r t i t i o n u n d e r
t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e c o g n i z e t h a t a t e n a n t i n common may n o t
d e p r i v e h i s c o t e n a n t o f t h e r i g h t t o a p a r t i t i o n by c o n v e y i n g o r
devising a l i f e estate t o h i s cotenant. H e i d e n v. Howes ( 1 9 4 5 ) ,
7 7 O h i o App. 5 2 5 , 6 7 N.E.2d 641. We f i n d t h e l a t t e r r a t i o n a l e
more persuasive.
As was s t a t e d i n H e i d e n :
" [ I l t i s f u n d a m e n t a l t h a t a t e n a n t i n common
cannot convey o r incumber t h e i n t e r e s t o f h i s
c o t e n a n t , n o r by any a c t o f h i s d i v e s t h i s
i n t e r e s t as c o t e n a n t i n t h e e n t i r e t r a c t , o r
d e f e a t , d e f e r o r l i m i t h i s r i g h t s as a t e n a n t i n
common, and a n y a t t e m p t t o do so i s i n e f f e c t u a l .
(Citing authority.)
" I f a t e n a n t i n common b y c r e a t i n g a c o n t i n g e n t
r e m a i n d e r o r b y e n t a i l i n g h i s e s t a t e may a f f e c t
t h e r i g h t o r i n t e r e s t o f h i s cotenant, i t would
b e w i t h i n t h e p o w e r o f a n y t e n a n t i n common, b y
c r e a t i n g s u c h an i n t e r e s t , t o p r e v e n t p a r t i t i o n
and d e p r i v e h i s c o t e n a n t o f h i s r i g h t t h e r e t o
c o n f e r r e d b y s t a t u t e , w h i c h o f c o u r s e , c a n n o t be
permitted. The d i f f i c u l t y o f m a k i n g p a r t i t i o n
and t h e i n c o n v e n i e n c e r e s u l t i n g t o o t h e r t e n a n t s
f u r n i s h no s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r d e n y i n g i t .
(Citing authority.)
"We f i n d no e x c e p t i o n i n t h e l a w t o t h e r i g h t o f
a n o w n e r i n f e e t o compel p a r t i t i o n and s i n c e
p l a i n t i f f h e r e owns an u n d i v i d e d o n e - h a 1 f
i n t e r e s t i n fee w i t h t h e r i g h t t o immediate
p o s s e s s i o n and t o h a v e t h a t p a r t s e t o f f i n
s e v e r a l t y , t h e f a c t t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e
immediate possession f o r l i f e o f the remaining
i n t e r e s t w i l l n o t be a b a r t o h i s r i g h t o f
p a r t i t i o n , because t h e decree can o p e r a t e t o p u t
him i n exclusive possession o f h i s undivided
o n e - h a l f i n f e e w i t h t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o use and
i m p r o v e unhampered by j o i n t o w n e r s h i p . " 67
N.E.2d a t 644-645.
T u r n i n g n e x t t o a p p e l l a n t s ' a r g u m e n t r e g a r d i ng pub1 i c
policy, we f i n d no e q u i t a b l e g r o u n d s t o b a r a p a r t i t i o n i n t h e
p r e s e n t case. Appellants' ignore the facts i n their brief. It i s
stated i n appellants' brief:
" H e r e a f i n d i n g f o r LAWRENCE o r d e r i n g p a r t i t i o n
i s i n direct contravention of the w i l l of Harry
Amundson who b o u g h t t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n , h e l d
i t f o r 26 y e a r s and a t h i s d e a t h l e f t t h e e n t i r e
parcel t o h i s wife w i t h the wish t h a t the land
be t r a n s f e r r e d a t her death t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n .
T h i s i s i n v i o l a t i o n o f b o t h p u b l i c p o l i c y and
e q u i t a b l e and l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s .
" ... The r e q u e s t e d p a r t i t i o n h e r e i s a s k i n g a
c o u r t t o v a l u e a f u t u r e l i f e e s t a t e and b e c a u s e
o f the unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e land i n
q u e s t i o n t h i s s i m p l y c a n n o t be done."
I n d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o these assertions, the property
was h e l d b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t and H a r r y Amundson as t e n a n t s i n com-
mon s i n c e 1 9 4 1 , and V i o l a L a w r e n c e does n o t seek a p a r t i t i o n b e t -
ween h e r l i f e e s t a t e and t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' r e m a i n d e r i n t h e u n d i -
vided one-half i n t e r e s t h e l d b y H a r r y Amundson a t h i s d e a t h .
A l t h o u g h we h a v e r e c e n t l y s t a t e d t h a t a p a r t i t i o n "may
b e d e n i e d w h e r e i t w o u l d be a g a i n s t p r i n c i p l e s o f l a w or equity
o r against public policy . . .", L a w r e n c e v. Harvey (1980),
Mont. , 6 0 7 P.2d 551, 556, 37 St.Rep. 370, 375, such c i r -
c u m s t a n c e s do n o t e x i s t i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . We h o l d t h a t a
t e s t a t o r ' s d e s i r e t h a t p r o p e r t y h e l d by a s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e be
devised t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n i s not grounds f o r d e f e a t i n g a r i g h t t o
p a r t ition. To t h e c o n t r a r y , equitable p r i n c i ples support a
f i n d i n g t h a t a d e c e d e n t n o t be a l l o w e d t o d e f e a t a p r o p e r t y r i g h t
o f h i s s u r v i v o r by a m e r e d e s i r e t h a t a s u b s e q u e n t d i s p o s i t i o n
occur.
Affirmed.
Chief Justice
M r . J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. S h e a , d e e m i n g h i m s e l f d i s q u a l i f i e d , d i d n o t
p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s case.