TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Best v. Williams

Ray BEST v. Judy WILLIAMS

Best v. Williams, 537 S.W.2d 793 (Ark. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 21, 1976
Docket
No. 76-71
Judges
Byrd
Citations
537 S.W.2d 793260 Ark. 301976 Ark. LEXIS 1762

Opinion of the Court — Byrd

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Conley Byrd, Justice. Appellant Ray Best and appellee Judy Williams were divorced November 11, 1972. In that decree appellee was awarded for life a one-third interest in 210 acres of land owned by appellant. Following her remarriage and the relinquishment of custody of the two children to appellant, appellee brought an action to partition the 210 acres. The trial court entered an order appointing commissioners to divide the lands in kind. For reversal appellant raises the issues hereinafter discussed.

We find no merit in appellant’s contention that this partition action is prevented by the homestead laws, Ark. Const., art. 9, § 3. As pointed out in Keesee v. Bushart, 203 Ark. 668 , 158 S.W. 2d 915 (1942), one may not claim the homestead exemption as to a claimant against whom he does not have an exclusive possessory right — i.e. a homestead exemption cannot be claimed in a partition suit against a co-tenant.

Appellant also complains that the trial court erred in consolidating the partition suit with the original divorce action. Since the divorce depree would not be conclusive of the right of appellee to a partition, we can find no prejudicial error that could result from the consolidation.

Appellant complains that the trial court erred in awarding the appellee in the original divorce action a one-third interest for life in the whole 210 acres instead of designating the specific property to which she was entitled. Not having appealed from that decision within the time permitted by law, the appellant is not now in a position to complain.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1978: 11979: 11980: 11984: 11987: 21990: 12002: 12006: 12024: 119782026peak 1987 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lawrence v. Harvey607 P.2d 551 (Mont. 1980)
  2. Wilson v. Prentiss140 P.3d 288 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006)
  3. Ford v. Ford783 S.W.2d 879 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990)
  4. Nelson v. Nelson723 S.W.2d 849 (Ark. Ct. App. 1987)
  5. Best v. Williams566 S.W.2d 133 (Ark. 1978)
  6. Pascall v. Smith588 S.W.2d 701 (Ark. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Clifford W. Christian and Karen D. Christian v. Swo Properties, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation Doing Business in Boone County, Arkansas2024 Ark. App. 524, 700 S.W.3d 226
  2. Wilson v. Prentiss140 P.3d 288 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006)
  3. In re Cunningham276 B.R. 314 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2002)
  4. Ford v. Ford783 S.W.2d 879 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990)
  5. Ladd v. Swanson511 N.E.2d 1112 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987)
  6. Nelson v. Nelson723 S.W.2d 849 (Ark. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Keesee v. Bushart, 158 S.W.2d 915 (Ark. 1942) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list