“He who comes for the inheritance is often made to pay for the funeral”.* When heirs inherit property together and can’t agree on its use, Texas courts strongly prefer dividing the land physically rather than forcing a sale, even when one owner wants to cash out.
Atkinson v. Land Endeavors held that under the Uniform Partition of Heirs’ Property Act, courts must order partition in kind unless the party opposing physical division proves substantial prejudice to all cotenants, not just themselves.
Three Sisters, Two Sales, One Standoff
Joseph Atkinson devised the surface estate of his 152-acre tract in equal, undivided one-third shares to his three daughters. Two sold their interests to Evans and Rossi; heir Paula Atkinson held her share.
Evans and Rossi filed a partition action against Atkinson in accordance with the Act. Atkinson declined the cotenant buyout option under Section 23A.007.
At trial, Atkinson, a California lawyer appearing pro se (after running through three different counsel), requested partition by sale rather than physical division. She contended that carving the tract into smaller parcels would erode its investment value, complicate ongoing oil‑and‑gas operations, and invite surface‑use conflicts with mineral owners.
Despite her challenge, the trial court ruled that the property was susceptible to partition in kind, confirmed each party’s undivided one‑third interest, and appointed a surveyor and three commissioners to divide it into contiguous parcels wherever feasible. Atkinson appealed.
Evidence Supporting Partition in Kind
The appellate court affirmed the trial court, grounding its analysis in Section 23A.008’s directive that, in the event of an unsuccessful buyout, the court shall order partition in kind unless the court, after consideration of the seven factors listed in Section 23A.009, concludes that sale is proper. The trial court found that partition in kind would not result in substantial prejudice to the cotenants as a group.
The court applied the seven factors:
- Practical divisibility: the property—a rectangular, fully wooded, vacant tract in an un‑zoned area—could be divided practicably; appraisal maps and testimony from Evans and Rossi confirmed workable physical boundaries.
- Value impact: Atkinson offered no evidence demonstrating that subdividing the wooded land would depress aggregate fair‑market value below the proceeds of a unitary sale. Rather, the appraisals characterized the tract’s highest and best use as recreational, rural‑residential, or agricultural, not commercial timber.
- Duration of ownership favored neither side, as the land had been held jointly by all three heirs before they conveyed their shares;
- Atkinson’s sentimental attachment was outweighed by her own request to liquidate the asset;
- Alleged interference with oil‑and‑gas operations was unsubstantiated, and minerals are presumed equally distributed absent contrary proof — none was offered;
- No evidence showed unequal contributions to taxes, insurance, or improvements; and
- Miscellaneous considerations (wetlands, existing easements, limited access points) did not foreclose a fair geographic split.
Because Atkinson bore the burden to prove the tract was incapable of equitable division and failed to supply contrary valuations or operational impediments, the court concluded that partition in kind would not substantially prejudice any cotenant.
Atkinson’s several other points of error were overruled. One was unpreserved because she never raised the issue or obtained a ruling in the trial court. The other, including a “laundry list of multifarious complaints,” (the legal term is “bellyaching”) lacked supporting legal authority or adequate briefing and thus was waived (which looks like what you get when you represent yourself).
Your musical interlude.
*Said to be a proverb. We got it from the internet.
[View source.]
