Renner v. Bonner
Annotate this CaseA parcel of land in Tyler County was split in ninths and bequeathed to the heirs of Robert Amos. Plaintiff and Heir Barbara Renner began to purchase the other heirs’ one-ninths interests. In 2000, Ms. Renner owned six-ninths of the original parcel. Billie Worden, C.W. Anderson and Mary Anderson owned the remaining three-ninths. Ms. Renner brought a partition suit against the Andersons and Ms. Worden. Appellants Edgar and Hazel Bonner owned a tract of land that bordered the Worden/Anderson portion. During the pendency of the partition suit, the Bonners acquired an undivided one-ninths’ interest in the Worden ninth by virtue of a deed from Ms. Worden. The Bonners said they bought the interest to preserve their right to cross the property in order to access the nearby state highway. The Bonners then intervened in Ms. Renner’s partition suit. Ms. Renner sued the Bonners, claiming that they interfered with a contract between Ms. Renner and Ms. Worden over the purchase of Ms. Worden’s parcel. The court granted partial summary judgment to the Bonners, finding that they owned a one-ninth interest in the land. The court also found that Ms. Renner now owned the other eight-ninths’ interest in the property. Ms. Renner brought a separate suit against her relatives and the Bonners to force the partition so that all could be paid for their respective interests in the land. A hearing was held in the circuit court, and the court appointed three Commissioners to prepare a report as to whether the property could be partitioned. The report acknowledged that all parties were concerned with access to the state highway. The Commissioners recommended that the parcel be split using the right-of-way to the highway as the division line. The Bonners objected because according to the Commissioner’s report, they would get a smaller piece of land. Furthermore, the Bonners argued that if Ms. Renner sold her parcel, the Bonners would be landlocked. The court held a hearing of the parties’ objections to the Commissioners’ report. Without taking any evidence, the Court held that the parcel should be sold as one parcel at public auction. A judicial sale was held at the front door of the county courthouse, at which the only bidders were Ms. Renner and the Bonners. Ms. Renner was the highest bidder, and bid over $200,000 for the entire parcel. The Supreme Court reversed the actions of the trial court, finding that the lower court should have held an evidentiary hearing on issues presented by the parties regarding partition. The Court found that the lower court and its appointed Commissioners failed to address why the parcel should not have been partitioned: “Evidence on these issues must be taken by the circuit court, and the circuit court’s ruling on the matter must be supported by a detailed order containing sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
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.