Parker v. Shecut

562 S.E.2d 620 (2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Mary died and left her estate to her three children; Marion (D), Anne (P), and Winfield. The three executed a written agreement delineating how the substantial real property inherited from their mother would be divided. Winfield received the bulk of the family's farm adjacent to his residence, while P and D received, as tenants in common, some farmland, a beach house at Edisto Island, and a number of commercial properties. P and D agreed to manage their properties together, and each deposited $3,000.00 in a banking account under the name Shecut Investments. They did not execute a partnership agreement nor otherwise, reduce their management agreement to writing. P and D maintained the beach house as a rental property through 1995. Things turned caustic between P and D. In January 1996 D, without consulting P, made the beach house his primary residence, and ceased renting the house. P testified that D told her in March 1996 that she was not welcome to use the beach house and that he changed the locks. D claimed he changed the locks after the house was vandalized on June 13, 1997. D suspected P committed the vandalism. The stories of both P and D varied significantly. P sued D and a master ordered the property granted Anne and Bo in the private agreement divided in-kind, with the exception of the beach house, which he ordered sold at public auction. The master found D had not committed ouster and awarded P no rent for the time D was in exclusive possession of the house. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that P offered no evidence of either ouster or exclusion. P appealed.