McNeely v. Bone
698 S.W.2d 512, 287 Ark. 339, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 2253 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court order for a partition by sale will be upheld over a partition in kind when the only evidence on record indicates that a physical division of the property cannot be made fairly based on value. A constitutional challenge to a state's partition statute requires specific evidence of discriminatory application in the case at hand, not merely general allegations of abuse.
Facts:
- John B. Blanton obtained a 160-acre parcel of land by patent in 1904.
- Over time, various descendants of Blanton, the appellants, inherited undivided interests in this land, collectively owning 28.6%.
- The appellees purchased the undivided interests of twelve other Blanton descendants.
- The 160-acre property consists of four distinct 40-acre tracts of disparate value.
- The appellants, wishing to keep the ancestral land, offered to accept one specific 40-acre tract (constituting 25% of the total acreage) as their share.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellees filed a petition in an Arkansas trial court (chancery court) seeking to partition a 160-acre property they co-owned with the appellants.
- The trial court found that the land could not be partitioned in kind without great prejudice to the owners.
- The trial court entered an order for the land to be sold and the proceeds divided among the co-owners.
- The appellants appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a court's order for a partition by sale, rather than in kind, an unconstitutional application of state partition statutes when the challenging party fails to present evidence of discrimination or that an in-kind division would be fair based on property value?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice David Newbern
No. A court's order for a partition by sale is not unconstitutional and will be upheld when the challenging party fails to produce evidence of discrimination or that a fair in-kind partition based on value is possible. The appellants' constitutional argument fails because they presented no evidence of racial discrimination or a due process violation specific to their case; general allegations that the statute is being abused are insufficient. The trial court's decision to order a sale was also proper because the only evidence presented was expert testimony stating a fair in-kind division was impossible. Under Arkansas law, an in-kind division must account for the quality and value of the land, not just the quantity of acreage. The appellants offered no evidence to show their proposed division would be fair in terms of comparative value, so the trial court's factual finding that a sale was necessary was not clearly erroneous.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden on parties challenging a court-ordered partition by sale. It confirms that constitutional challenges to facially neutral statutes require specific proof of discriminatory application, not just reliance on general social or academic commentary. The ruling solidifies the legal principle that in partition actions, 'value' is the determinative metric for fairness, not acreage, and that trial court factual findings on this issue are given significant deference on appeal. This precedent serves as a cautionary tale for co-tenants who wish to avoid a forced sale: they must be prepared to present expert testimony and appraisals to prove that a physical division of the property is economically equitable and feasible.
