Parker v. Shecut
349 S.C. 226, 562 S.E.2d 620 (2002)
Rule of Law:
An ouster occurs when a co-tenant in possession of jointly-owned real property engages in unequivocal acts, such as changing the locks and refusing to provide a key, that are so distinctly hostile to the other co-tenant's rights as to clearly and unmistakably evince an intention to disseize and claim exclusive possession.
Facts:
- In 1992, siblings Anne S. Parker, Marion A. Shecut, III ('Bo'), and Winfield W. Shecut inherited a substantial estate from their mother, including a beach house at Edisto Island.
- Through a 1993 private agreement, Anne and Bo received the beach house as tenants in common, along with other properties they agreed to manage together.
- From 1993 through 1995, the beach house was maintained as a rental property, generating income.
- In January 1996, Bo moved into the beach house, making it his primary residence and ceasing all rental activity without consulting Anne.
- Anne testified that in March 1996, Bo told her she was not welcome at the house.
- On June 13, 1997, the house was vandalized; Bo suspected Anne was responsible.
- Following the vandalism, Bo changed the locks on the beach house.
- Bo admitted in his testimony that after changing the locks, he intentionally did not provide Anne with a new key and had no intention of doing so unless ordered by a court.
Procedural Posture:
- Anne S. Parker initiated a legal action against her brother, Marion A. Shecut, III ('Bo'), in a South Carolina court to partition their jointly-owned properties.
- The case was heard by a Master in Equity, a type of trial-level judge, who ordered the properties to be divided but found that Bo had not committed an ouster regarding the beach house.
- Anne, as the appellant, appealed the ouster ruling to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Master in Equity's decision, concluding that Anne offered no evidence of ouster or exclusion.
- Anne, as the petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of South Carolina to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 a co-tenant's action of changing the locks on a jointly-owned property and refusing to provide a key to the other co-tenant constitute an ouster?
Opinions:
Majority - Pleicones, Justice
Yes. A co-tenant's actions of changing the locks and refusing to provide the other co-tenant with a key constitute an ouster. Ouster does not require a physical eviction but is established by a co-tenant's possession being attended with circumstances that evince a claim of exclusive right and a denial of the other's rights. The court found that Bo’s actions were so distinctly hostile to Anne's property rights that his intention to disseize her was clear and unmistakable. The court rejected the idea that Bo's suspicion of vandalism justified his self-help remedy of excluding his co-tenant, stating that such actions are equivalent to forcibly keeping the other party out and establish an ouster as of the date the locks were changed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the modern standard for ouster between tenants in common, emphasizing that overt, hostile actions denying a co-tenant's fundamental right of access are sufficient proof without a literal physical eviction. It reinforces the legal principle that a co-tenant's exclusive possession becomes wrongful, and thus an ouster, when they take distinct steps to exclude their co-owners. The case serves as a precedent against using self-help remedies in property disputes, directing aggrieved co-tenants to seek judicial remedies like an injunction rather than forcibly excluding another owner, even if they suspect wrongdoing.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Parker v. Shecut (2002)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"