 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Beach v. Beach: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Colorado Supreme Court |citation=74 P.3d 1 |date=2003 |subject=Property |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/beach-v-beach |source_type=Video summary |case_text_source=Quimbee }} }}") |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|court=Colorado Supreme Court | |court=Colorado Supreme Court | ||
|citation=74 P.3d 1 | |citation=74 P.3d 1 | ||
|date=2003 | |date=June 30, 2003 | ||
|subject=Property | |subject=Property | ||
|facts=*This case is about a property dispute between a mother & her daughter. | |||
*The adult daughter ("Beach") had elderly parents. | |||
*The daughter offered her parents to build an addition to her house. | |||
*The parents built an in-law suite connected to the daughter's house. | |||
*The parents agreed that the daughter would acquire the added housing unit upon their passing. | |||
*The parents had a '''life-estate interest''' | |||
*The daughter had '''future-remainder interest''' | |||
*The father died. | |||
*The mother & daughter fell out. | |||
* | |||
|procedural_history=* The mother sued her daughter to [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/partition partition] her interest in the added house from the daughter's interest. | |||
* The mother lost. | |||
* The mother won in the appeals court. | |||
|issues=May a [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/life-estate life-estate] interest in property be partitioned from a non-concurrent & successive [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/remainder-interest remainder interest] in that property? | |||
|holding=No; a life-estate interest in property may not be partitioned from a non-concurrent & successive remainder interest in that property. | |||
|judgment=Reversed | |||
|reasons=Justice Mullarkey: <nowiki><u>Concurrent ownership</u></nowiki> is generally required for partition. | |||
|rule=Without concurrent interests, there is no unity of possession to sever (partition). | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/beach-v-beach | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/beach-v-beach | ||
|source_type=Video summary | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |case_text_source=Quimbee | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/co-supreme-court/1183009.html | |||
|case_text_source=findlaw.com | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/beach-v-beach-17 | |||
|case_text_source=CaseText | |||
}} | |||
|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video | |||
|service=YouTube | |||
|id=UHWCerFRfH4 | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:40, March 2, 2024
| Beach v. Beach | |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 74 P.3d 1 |
| Date decided | June 30, 2003 |
Facts
- This case is about a property dispute between a mother & her daughter.
- The adult daughter ("Beach") had elderly parents.
- The daughter offered her parents to build an addition to her house.
- The parents built an in-law suite connected to the daughter's house.
- The parents agreed that the daughter would acquire the added housing unit upon their passing.
- The parents had a life-estate interest
- The daughter had future-remainder interest
- The father died.
- The mother & daughter fell out.
Procedural History
- The mother sued her daughter to partition her interest in the added house from the daughter's interest.
- The mother lost.
- The mother won in the appeals court.
Issues
May a life-estate interest in property be partitioned from a non-concurrent & successive remainder interest in that property?
Holding
No; a life-estate interest in property may not be partitioned from a non-concurrent & successive remainder interest in that property.
Judgment
Reversed
Reasons
Justice Mullarkey: <u>Concurrent ownership</u> is generally required for partition.
Rule
Without concurrent interests, there is no unity of possession to sever (partition).
