Tyrones v. Tyrones
Annotate this Case
Appellant Dennis Tyrones and his brother, George, held joint title to land in DeKalb County. After George’s death, the probate court awarded a fifty-percent interest in the property to his widow, Appellee Andrea White Tyrones. In December 2011, Appellee filed a complaint for statutory partition
of the land, and Appellant answered, alleging various defenses and counterclaims. In a subsequent consent order, the parties agreed that the land could not be divided by metes and bounds; instead, they agreed to a process by which the land would be appraised and, if necessary, subject to a partition sale. Though dissatisfied with the initial appraisal, Appellant failed to secure a second one (even with an extension of time); thus, as provided in the consent order, the initial appraisal established the fair market value of the subject property. In April 2013, counsel for Appellee filed a “Notice of Established Appraised Value,” which, among other things, reiterated the time frame envisioned by the consent order for the sale of the subject property once the value had been established and where Appellant had elected not to exercise the option to purchase Appellee’s interest in the property. In January 2015, the trial court entered an order initiating the partition-sale process. A few months later, Appellee purchased the property at the partition sale for $2,000. On June 3, 2015, Appellant moved the trial court to set aside the partition sale. In her response, Appellee attached correspondence showing that her counsel had tried numerous times over the course of several months to negotiate with Appellant’s counsel to avoid the sale and that Appellee’s counsel (as well as the trial court’s staff) had attempted to engage Appellant’s counsel to prepare for the sale, but counsel was unresponsive. In October 2015, the trial court entered an order confirming the sale and denying Appellant’s motion. Finding no error with the trial court's order, the Supreme Court affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.