Legal Opinion · Dissent

Zimmerman v. Marsh

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided August 15, 2005No. 26029Published

1DissentJustice Pleicones

I respectfully dissent. While the Zimmermans’ conduct may properly be characterized as acquisitive, they have done nothing illegal.

A joint tenant may compel partition. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-61-10 (2005). A court may order partition in kind, that is, divide the property among all the owners, or by allotment, that is, to “allot” a portion of the property to one of the owners, with the remainder held jointly by the other owners or sold with the proceeds divided among the owners,3 or by judicial sale of the entire parcel. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-61-50 (2005). The circuit court may, in some limited…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Schnell v. SchnellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Anderson v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
  3. Fike v. SharerOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Ark Land Co. v. HarperWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Bennett v. Floyd Ex Rel. RhodusSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1960

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API