Succession of Miller
1996 La. App. LEXIS 901, 674 So.2d 441, 95 La.App. 4 Cir. 1272 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 803, a court may determine the use and management of property held in indivision when co-owners cannot agree, if a partition action is 'not available' as a practical matter because it would be a needless and duplicative judicial procedure, such as when the property is already listed for sale by agreement of all co-owners.
Facts:
- Upon the death of Edna Kuntz Miller, her seven surviving children and four grandchildren became co-owners of a family residence.
- The decedent's will appointed one of the sons, Martin O. Miller II, as the executor of her estate.
- Concerned about his personal liability as executor, Martin Miller proposed a restricted access plan for the co-owned residence, requiring co-owners to give reasonable notice and be accompanied by him or his designee during visits.
- The alternative to the restricted plan was for all heirs to release Martin from personal liability, which they did not all agree to do.
- Martin's brother, Pierre Valcour Miller ('Val Miller'), objected to the restricted access plan, asserting his right as a co-owner to unrestricted access.
- At the time of the dispute, all co-owners had already agreed to sell the residence and it was listed on the market with a real estate agent.
- Val Miller admitted he believed he had the right to remove items from the home without asking other co-owners.
- There was a history of disagreement between Martin and Val concerning the use of other co-owned family properties.
Procedural Posture:
- Pierre Valcour Miller ('Val Miller') filed a petition for injunctive relief in the trial court against the executor, Martin O. Miller II, to stop him from restricting access to a co-owned residence.
- The trial court denied Val Miller's petition for injunctive relief.
- Subsequently, Martin Miller filed a 'Motion To Determine Management of Property Held In Indivisión' in the same trial court.
- After a trial on the motion, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Martin Miller, granting him control of the property's keys and establishing a restricted access policy for all co-owners.
- Val Miller, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.
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 Louisiana Civil Code Article 803, which permits a court to determine the management of co-owned property when partition is 'not available,' authorize a trial court to impose an access plan when a partition action is technically possible but would be practically unnecessary because all co-owners have already agreed to sell the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Armstrong, Judge.
Yes, the trial court is authorized to impose such a plan. A court may determine the use and management of property held in indivision when a partition is practically, not just legally, unavailable. Here, all co-owners had already agreed to sell the property and listed it with a real estate agent. Initiating a formal partition by licitation (a court-ordered sale) would have been a 'needless expense and unnecessary judicial procedure' because it would only accomplish what was already in process. Therefore, as a practical matter, partition was 'not available' within the meaning of Article 803, empowering the trial court to resolve the management dispute among the co-owners pending the sale. The court also found the specific restrictions imposed were reasonable under the circumstances, given the executor's liability concerns and one co-owner's admission that he felt entitled to remove items from the home without permission.
Analysis:
This case establishes a pragmatic interpretation of the phrase 'partition is not available' in Louisiana Civil Code Article 803. Instead of a rigid, literal interpretation requiring partition to be legally impossible, the court adopted a practical approach. This decision gives trial courts greater flexibility to intervene and resolve management disputes among co-owners, promoting judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative and costly litigation. The ruling is significant for property law in Louisiana as it allows courts to fashion temporary remedies for co-owners who are already pursuing an informal, voluntary partition through a sale, without forcing them into a formal partition suit.
Unlock the full brief for Succession of Miller