Ark-La-Miss Timber Co., Inc. v. Wilkins
833 So. 2d 1154, 2002 La. App. LEXIS 3809, 2002 WL 31757643 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Co-owned property is not 'conveniently divisible' and must be partitioned by licitation (sale) when factors such as a significant, separately-owned improvement and unequal vehicular access would cause loss or inconvenience to one of the owners if the property were divided in kind.
Facts:
- In 1983, Paul B. Wilkins and Judge Ronald L. Lewellyan (through his company, Ark-La-Miss Timber Co., Inc. or 'ALM') became co-owners of a 1,286-acre tract of land in Caldwell Parish.
- The property, used for timber production and recreation, consists of swampy bottomland and is traversed by creeks.
- The only legal access is a logging road that forks; the northwest fork leading to the western half is suitable for vehicles, while the southeast fork leading to the eastern half is in disrepair and only accessible by four-wheeler.
- The parties sometimes used a private road owned by another company, Plum Creek Timber, to access the east half, but they had no legal right to do so and were denied a right of way.
- In 1988, with Lewellyan's consent, Wilkins built a log cabin on the western half of the property entirely at his own expense and also paid to have utilities connected.
- Over the years, Lewellyan and others used the cabin, and ALM began contributing to maintenance expenses in 1993, but never paid for construction costs.
- At the time of the dispute, Wilkins and his family were residing in the cabin.
Procedural Posture:
- Ark-La-Miss Timber Co., Inc. (ALM) filed a petition in a Louisiana trial court seeking a judicial partition of property co-owned with Paul B. Wilkins.
- Wilkins filed a reconventional demand (counterclaim) seeking to be recognized as the separate owner of a log cabin located on the property.
- The trial court recognized Wilkins as the separate owner of the cabin but ordered that the entire property be partitioned by licitation (sold).
- The trial court also assessed all court costs against Wilkins.
- Wilkins appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, challenging the partition by licitation and the assessment of costs.
- ALM answered the appeal, challenging the trial court's finding that Wilkins had sole ownership of the cabin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the presence of a separately owned improvement (a cabin) and unequal access to different parts of a co-owned property render the property not 'conveniently divisible,' thereby requiring a partition by licitation rather than a partition in kind?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, J.
Yes. A partition by licitation is required because the property cannot be conveniently divided in kind due to the unequal access and the presence of the separately-owned cabin. The law favors partition in kind, but a partition by licitation is appropriate when an in-kind division would cause a diminution in value or inconvenience to an owner. First, the court affirmed that the cabin belongs solely to Wilkins under La. C.C. art. 493, as he built it with his co-owner's consent at his own expense; ALM's later contributions were for maintenance, not ownership. Second, dividing the property would create significant inconvenience. The west half has superior vehicular access and utilities, while the east half is difficult to access. Forcing the parties to share the single legal access road would inevitably lead to disputes over maintenance and expenses. Most importantly, if the property were divided in kind, the lots would be drawn by chance, meaning Wilkins would not be guaranteed to receive the parcel containing the cabin he owns and lives in, creating a major legal and practical problem. Given these inconveniences, the trial court did not err in concluding the property could not be conveniently divided.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'conveniently divided' standard in Louisiana partition law, emphasizing that practical considerations like access and improvements can override the legal preference for partition in kind. The court's reasoning establishes that the presence of a substantial, separately-owned improvement on co-owned land is a powerful factor favoring partition by licitation, as the random allocation of lots in an in-kind partition could unjustly separate the improvement's owner from their property. This decision provides a strong precedent for parties seeking a forced sale when a physical division would create ongoing conflict or inequitable results regarding access or separately-owned structures.
