Heirs’ partition action not barred: Dog’s longevity leads to property dispute
The Rappahannock County Circuit Court ruled that a property settlement agreement (PSA) allowing a man to live on property during his dog’s life did not prevent his heirs from seeking to partition the property after the dog outlived him. The PSA had minimal instructions for the scenario where the man died before the dog, which occurred.The man’s ex-wife opposed the partition and filed a plea in bar, arguing the PSA prevented the heirs’ action. Judge James P. Fisher disagreed, stating that the PSA did not bar partition and that the heirs’ claim was compatible with the parties’ original intent to eventually divide the property. Fisher found insufficient evidence to enforce the PSA as a restrictive covenant or equitable servitude, concluding that the PSA’s terms were too vague to bar partition.
Fisher emphasized that while the PSA allowed the ex-wife temporary rights to the property, the intention was always for the land to be divided between the parties or their heirs. The plea in bar was overruled, allowing the partition case to proceed.
For more information see Nick Hurston “Heirs’ partition action not barred: Dog’s longevity leads to property dispute,” Virginia Lawyers Weekly, September 16, 2024.
Special thanks to Deborah Matthews (Virginia Estate Planning Attorney) for bringing this article to my attention.