Noble v. Noble

2013 OK CIV APP 41, 303 P.3d 907, 2013 WL 1928517, 2013 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 26
CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedJanuary 31, 2013
DocketNo. 110,176
StatusPublished

This text of 2013 OK CIV APP 41 (Noble v. Noble) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Noble v. Noble, 2013 OK CIV APP 41, 303 P.3d 907, 2013 WL 1928517, 2013 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 26 (Okla. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

LARRY JOPLIN, Chief Judge.

4 1 Defendant/Appellant Jerry Boyd Noble seeks review of the trial court's order confirming the sheriff's sale of property to Ap-pellees Ronald Dean Dayton and Corey Wayne Dayton in the action for partition commenced by Plaintiffs Terry B. Noble and Cynthia N. Noble. In this appeal, Defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his prayer to redeem the property prior to confirmation of the sheriff's sale.

T2 Plaintiffs and Defendant inherited eight hundred eighty acres of real property in Major County, Oklahoma, from their grandfather. When they could not agree to a partition of the property in kind, Plaintiffs commenced the instant action. The trial court appointed commissioners to appraise the property, directed sale of the property by the sheriff for not less than two-thirds of the appraised value, and ordered a division of the proceeds among the Plaintiffs and Defendant.

138 The commissioners returned their report valuing the property at $528,000.00, and neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant objected to the commissioners' report. Appellees purchased the property at sheriff's sale for $378,400.00. Plaintiffs filed a motion to confirm the sale. Prior to hearing on the motion to confirm, Defendant filed his Objection to Motion to Confirm and a Notice of Exercise of Right to Redemption.

14 After a hearing, the trial court denied Defendant's Objection and asserted Right of Redemption, and a sheriff's deed issued to Appellees. Defendant now appeals, and complains the trial court erred in denying him his asserted right of redemption.

5 Partition of real estate by sheriff's sale is governed by statute, and an action to partition by sale is commenced by filing of a petition describing "the property and the respective interests of the owners thereof, if known." 12 0.8. § 1501.1(A). "The answers of the defendants must state, among other things, the amount and nature of their respective interests[; they may also deny the interests of any of the plaintiffs, or any of the defendants." 12 O.S. § 1504. "After the interests of all the parties shall have been [909]*909ascertained, the court shall make an order specifying the interests of the respective parties, and directing partition to be made accordingly." 12 0.8. § 1505. "Upon making such order, the court shall appoint three commissioners to make partition into the requisite number of shares." 12 O.S. § 1506. "The commissioners shall make partition of the property among the parties according to their respective interests, if such partition can be made without manifest injury[,] [blut if such partition cannot be made, the commissioners shall make a valuation and appraisement of the property[,] [and] [they shall make a report of their proceedings to the court, forthwith." 12 0.8. § 1509. "If partition be made by the commissioners, and no exceptions are filed to their report, the court shall render judgment that such partition be and remain firm and effectual forever." 12 0.8. § 1511.

T6 "If partition cannot be made, and the property shall have been valued and appraised, any one or more of the parties may elect to take the same at the appraisement, and the court may direct the sheriff to make a deed to the party or parties so electing, on payment to the other parties of their proportion of the appraised value." 12 0.8. § 1512. "If none of the parties elect to take the property at the valuation, or if several of the parties elect to take the same at the valuation, in opposition to each other, the court shall make an order directing the sheriff of the county to sell the same, in the same manner as in sales of real estate on execution; but no sale shall be made at less than two-thirds (2/3) of the valuation placed upon the property by the commissioners." 12 0.8. § 1518. "The sheriff shall make return of his proceedings to the court, and if the sale made by him shall be approved by the court, the sheriff shall execute a deed to the purchaser, upon the payment of the purchase money, or securing the same to be paid, in such manner as the court shall direct." 12 O.8. § 1514. "The court making partition shall tax the costs, attorney's fees and expenses which may acerue in the action, and apportion the same among the parties, according to their respective interests, and may award execution therefor, as in other cases." 12 0.8. § 1515. "The court shall have full power to make any order, not inconsistent with the provisions of this article, that may be necessary to make a just and equitable partition between the parties, and to secure their respective interests." 12 0.8. § 1516.

T7 Although this statutory regime has been on the books since statehood, the provisions are entirely silent on the issue of redemption. Furthermore, the parties neither cite, nor do we find, any Oklahoma cases addressing the propriety of redemption in an action for partition by sale.

18 Defendant nevertheless argues by analogy that, in an action for the forced sale of property in satisfaction of a mortgage, redemption is a favored, substantive legal right which lasts until confirmation of the sale. Sooner Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Oklahoma Cent. Credit Union, 1989 OK 170, ¶ 11, 790 P.2d 526, 529.1 Furthermore, says Defendant, Oklahoma law also recognizes the equitable right of redemption. Sooner Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 1989 OK 170, ¶12, 790 P.2d at 529.2 The Defendant points out that, so, too, in tax sales is the right of redemption assured. 68 O.S.Supp.2009 § 3113.3

[910]*910T9 Appellees respond, and first point out that the Oklahoma legislature made no statutory provision for redemption in partition actions as it did in actions for foreclosure of a security interest or the satisfaction of a tax burden, and that the legislature's choice in this respect evinces the legislature's intent to treat actions for partition by sale differently from actions for forced sale in satisfaction of a debt or tax. Appellees argue secondly, that the policy underlying redemption in mortgage foreclosures and tax sales, i.e., the loss of real property without adequate compensation, is entirely absent in an action for partition where the owners of property partitioned by sheriff's sale are entitled to a proportionate share of the sale proceeds.

%10 In a partition action, the right to redemption lies, if at all, only in the presence of statutory authority and the existence of a debtor-creditor relationship. 80 Am.Jur.2d Executions, Ete. § 363 (Westlaw 2012)4; 59A Am.Jur2d Partition § 49 (Westlaw 2012) 5; 76 Am.Jur.2d Trusts § 162 (Westlaw 2012) 6; 86 C.J.S. Tenancy in Common § 51 (Westlaw 2012).7

111 In this respect, absent Oklahoma statutory authority granting the right to redemption and the existence of a debtor-creditor relationship between the partitioner and purchaser at sheriff's sale, we cannot say the trial court erred in denying Defendant's request to redeem. As a practical matter, one co-owner of property to be partitioned by sale has no more superior claim to possession of the whole parcel than any other co-owner, whereas in the case of a mortgage foreclosure or tax sale, one might reasonably argue that the owner of the property sold in satisfaction of a mortgage or tax debt ought to be afforded the right to reseue his property from loss by satisfying the debt for which sale was ordered. Defendant clearly does not stand in the same position vis-a-vis the property partitioned by sale as does a mortgagor

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 OK CIV APP 41, 303 P.3d 907, 2013 WL 1928517, 2013 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noble-v-noble-oklacivapp-2013.