Threatt v. Rushing
361 So. 2d 329 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cotenant may not sever and sell timber from common property without the consent of the other cotenants. Furthermore, a life tenant commits actionable waste by cutting timber for a large-scale commercial operation for profit, as this diminishes the value of the inheritance for the remaindermen.
Facts:
- Mittie Alice Cooper Rushing Threatt (Mrs. Threatt) originally owned timberlands in fee simple.
- She later deeded the lands to her four children, reserving a life estate for herself.
- Subsequently, one of her daughters deeded her one-fourth interest in the property back to Mrs. Threatt.
- This resulted in Mrs. Threatt holding a life estate over the entire property and a one-fourth undivided fee interest, with her three other children (the appellees) each holding a one-fourth undivided fee interest as cotenants and remaindermen.
- In 1976, Mrs. Threatt decided to commercially harvest mature timber from the property for profit.
- Without securing the consent of her children, she hired Henry and Glen Cornish to selectively cut and sell the mature trees.
- The Cornishes began a large-scale cutting operation, removing over 113,000 board feet of pine and hardwood.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnny Roy Rushing, Andrew Ray Rushing, and Mittie Edna Rushing Foster sued Mittie Alice Cooper Rushing Threatt, Henry Cornish, and Glen Cornish in the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the timber cutting and a money judgment for the value of timber already cut.
- The Chancery Court (trial court) granted the injunction and entered a money decree for $9,344.26 against the defendants.
- Mrs. Threatt and the Cornishes, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
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 person who holds both a life estate and an undivided one-fourth fee interest in timberlands have the right to unilaterally cut and sell a substantial amount of mature timber for commercial profit without the consent of the other fee interest holders?
Opinions:
Majority - Broom, J.
No. A person holding both a life estate and a fractional fee interest as a cotenant may not unilaterally sever and sell timber from the common property without the consent of the other cotenants. Such an action constitutes both waste against the remaindermen and an improper exercise of rights as a cotenant. The court reasoned first from the perspective of Mrs. Threatt as a life tenant, holding that her large-scale commercial timber operation was not for 'good husbandry' or 'estovers' but was for profit, thereby diminishing the value of the chief inheritance and constituting actionable waste. Second, addressing her status as a cotenant, the court adopted the rule that a cotenant may not sever timber without the consent of other cotenants. It reasoned that allowing a cotenant to take a fractional share could lead to a 'race' to harvest resources and chaos, and that the proper remedy for disagreement is a judicial partition, not self-help. The court explicitly modified its prior holding in Leatherbury v. McInnis to the extent it could be interpreted to allow a cotenant to cut up to their fractional interest.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies Mississippi's property law by establishing a clear, prohibitory rule against the unilateral severance of timber by a cotenant. By rejecting the rule that a cotenant may take their fractional share, the court promotes cooperative management of shared resources and prevents a 'race to the bottom' that could destroy the property's value. The ruling strengthens the rights of non-consenting cotenants and remaindermen, forcing parties to either agree on commercial harvesting or seek a formal court-ordered partition. This precedent is significant for any case involving shared ownership of land with valuable natural resources, favoring judicial oversight over unilateral actions.
