MARY STEGALL and DAVID W. HENDRIX , Plaintiff s - Appell ee s , vs. RICKY L. STEGALL and BARBARA SUE GREEDY , Defendant s - Appell ants .
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-702 / 07-0620
Filed December 31, 2008
MARY STEGALL and
DAVID W. HENDRIX,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
RICKY L. STEGALL and
BARBARA SUE GREEDY,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, James S.
Heckerman, Judge.
The defendants appeal from the district court’s ruling denying them
summary judgment on the partition action brought by the plaintiffs. REVERSED
AND REMANDED.
DeShawne L. Bird-Sell of DeShawne L. Bird-Sell, P.L.C., Glenwood, for
appellants.
Matthew G. Woods of Peters Law Firm, P.C., Glenwood, for appellees.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Ricky Stegall and Barbara Greedy appeal the district court’s ruling denying
them summary judgment in this partition action. We reverse.
Mary Stegall filed a petition for partition of real property alleging she was
the owner of a life estate and that the defendants, Ricky Stegall, Barbara Greedy,
and David Hendrix, each had an undivided one-third vested remainder interest in
the property at issue. The petition asked that the property be sold and the profits
partitioned in accord with Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1201 through 1.1228.
Defendants Ricky Stegall and Barbara Greedy filed a motion for summary
judgment, asserting that absent the consent of the remaindermen, the holder of a
life estate could not seek partition.1
They do not consent to the action for
partition.
Mary Stegall filed a motion to amend the petition to realign David Hendrix
as a plaintiff who is the owner of an undivided remainder interest in the property.
The motion was granted and, on March 12, 2007, the district court entered a
ruling denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The court
concluded that the partition action was properly brought by a tenant in common,
with the consent of the life tenant.
1
Iowa Code § 557.9 provides:
No expectant estate shall be defeated or barred by an alienation or other
act of the owner of the precedent estate, nor by the destruction of such
precedent estate by disseizin, forfeiture, surrender, or merger; provided
that on the petition of the life tenant, with the consent of the holder of the
reversion, the district court may order the sale of the property in such
estate and the proceeds shall be subject to the order of the court until the
right thereto becomes fully vested. The proceedings shall be as in an
action for partition.
(Emphasis added).
3
Ricky Stegall and Barbara Greedy filed an application for interlocutory
appeal, which was granted by the supreme court. The case was then transferred
to this court.
“Partition may be maintained only when the parties plaintiff and defendant
are entitled to the present possession of their interests in severalty.” Morris v.
Morris, 383 N.W.2d 527, 528 (Iowa 1986) (internal quotation omitted).
It is
undisputed that Ricky Stegall, Barbary Greedy, and David Hendrix are not
entitled to present possession in light of Mary Stegall’s life estate.
“In the absence of positive statutory authorization, the holder of an
estate for years or for life in the property sought to be partitioned
cannot maintain an action for partition thereof against the
remaindermen or reversioners, and this rule applies to preclude his
suing the remaindermen or reversioners either for partition in kind
or for partition by sale and division of the proceeds . . . .”
Id. at 528-29 (quoting with approval 68 C.J.S. Partition § 57(a) (1950)). Mary
Stegall, the holder of a life estate cannot maintain an action for partition against
the Ricky Stegall, Barbara Greedy, and David Hendrix, be they characterized as
remaindermen or reversioners.
That David Hendrix was realigned as a plaintiff has no impact. “It makes
no difference that some of the plaintiffs share an interest with defendants in the
remainder.”
Id.
The district court is not authorized to order partition in the
circumstances presented.
The defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted.
We reverse and remand for entry of judgment in conformity with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
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.
