MANSON v. MCNEIL (2022)

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A), Ala. R. App. P.

It's appropriate here to affirm the circuit court's judgment without opinion. I write specially to underline for the lower courts and the bar the existence of the Alabama Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, § 35-6A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, which I believe should have been applied in this case.

In 2014, Alabama became one of the first states in the country to adopt the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (“the UPHPA”). See Thomas W. Mitchell, Reforming Property Law to Address Devastating Land Loss, 66 Ala. L. Rev. 1, 7 (2014). The UPHPA is a “comprehensive and significant innovation” to state partition law, “at least insofar as that law applies to partition actions involving family-owned, tenancy-in-common property.” Id. at 6. The UPHPA sets out certain procedures to better protect “the property rights of certain tenancy-in-common property owners who traditionally have been most at risk of losing their property at a forced partition sale” and to “improve[ ] the ability of [those] tenancyin-common property owners to maintain their real-estate-based wealth should a court order such a forced partition sale.” Id. Typically, the tenancy-in-common property owners covered by the UPHPA have inherited property through intestate succession or an unsophisticated will.

Our Legislature enacted the UPHPA through the Alabama Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (“the Heirs Act”), which applies to all partition actions commenced in Alabama on or after January 1, 2015. § 35-6A-3(a), Ala. Code 1975. The Heirs Act “supplements” the general partition provisions contained in Chapter 6 of Title 35 of the Alabama Code of 1975, “and if an action is governed by [the Heirs Act], [it] replaces those provisions of Chapter 6 ․ that are inconsistent with [the Heirs Act].” § 35-6A-3(c). Importantly, under the Heirs Act, in any action to partition real property, “the court shall determine whether the property is heirs property.” § 35-6A-3(b) (emphasis added).¹

The Heirs Act defines heirs property as “[r]eal property held in tenancy in common which satisfies” the following requirements “as of the filing of the partition action”:

“(A) There is no agreement in a record binding all the cotenants which governs the partition of the property;

“(B) One or more of the cotenants acquired title from a relative, whether living or deceased; and

“(C) Any of the following applies:

“(i) Twenty percent or more of the interests are held by cotenants who are relatives;

“(ii) Twenty percent or more of the interests are held by an individual who acquired title from a relative, whether living or deceased; or

“(iii) Twenty percent or more of the cotenants are relatives.”

§ 35-6A-2(5), Ala. Code 1975. If property is heirs property, “the property shall be partitioned under [the Heirs Act] unless all of the cotenants otherwise agree in a record.” § 35-6A-3(b) (emphasis added).

The Heirs Act is a relatively recent innovation to Alabama's partition law -- in fact, to my knowledge, our Court has applied the statute only once, in Stephens v. Claridy, [Ms. 1200006, June 30, 2021] ––– So. 3d ––––, 2021 WL 2672891 (Ala. 2021). But it is an important innovation, as indicated by the Heirs Act's mandatory language and its potential to streamline litigation over inherited land. For that reason, lower courts and members of the bar should become familiar with the Heirs Act and invoke it in disputes about family property inherited by tenants in common.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The commentary to the Heirs Act instructs that “[a] final order of a court in a partition action filed on or after [January 1, 2015,] is subject to challenge if the court failed to determine whether the real property in question is heirs property as that term is defined under this Act.” § 35-6A-3, Uniform Cmt. 1. In other words, a party could challenge a final order in a partition action if the circuit court failed to make the required threshold determination of whether the property is heirs property, even if the property is not heirs property and thus not ultimately governed by the Heirs Act.

MITCHELL, Justice.

Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur. Mitchell, J., concurs specially, with opinion.