Culver v. Rhodes, 87 N.Y. 348 (1882)

A co-tenant can maintain a partition action even if another co-tenant is in adverse possession of the property, provided the plaintiff has a present right to possession; the court can resolve title disputes within the partition action itself.

Summary

This case addresses whether a co-tenant can bring a partition action when another co-tenant is in adverse possession of the property. The New York Court of Appeals held that the action can be maintained. The court reasoned that Section 1543 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorized the court to resolve all disputes involving the parties’ respective titles and rights of possession within the partition action. This effectively abrogated the prior rule requiring a tenant out of possession to regain possession via ejectment before seeking partition. The court emphasized the importance of avoiding circuity of action and resolving all issues in one proceeding. The decision clarifies that a present right to possession, rather than strict physical possession, is sufficient to maintain the action.

Facts

The appellants (defendants) owned an undivided three-fourths interest in the property. They claimed to have been in actual and exclusive possession of the entire property for over twenty years, asserting ownership and holding it adversely to the plaintiff and all others. The plaintiff claimed title to the remaining one-fourth interest. The trial court found that the appellants were in possession, holding adversely to the plaintiff, but that such adverse possession began less than nine years before the commencement of the action.

Procedural History

The plaintiff brought a partition action. The trial court found that the appellants’ adverse possession was not sufficient to establish title to the entire property, but held that the adverse possession, even if not long enough to ripen into title, did not bar the partition action. The General Term affirmed, holding that under Section 1543 of the Code, an adverse holding insufficient to presume a grant could not defeat the action. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an adverse possession by a co-tenant for a period less than that required to bar a possessory action is a valid defense to an action for partition.

Holding

No, because Section 1543 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to try and determine all disputes which may arise between the plaintiff and their co-tenants involving their respective titles and rights of possession to the property, thus allowing the partition action to proceed despite the adverse possession.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged the prior rule that a plaintiff whose title or right to possession was disputed or who had been ousted by a co-tenant could not maintain a partition action until regaining possession in an ejectment action. However, the court found that Section 1543 of the Code of Civil Procedure changed this rule. The court reasoned that this section was intended to confer authority on the court to try and determine all disputes between the plaintiff and co-tenants regarding their titles and rights of possession. The court stated that “[t]heretofore nothing could be tried, if the bare fact of the common holding or tenancy was disputed.” The court emphasized the legislative intent to effect a “radical change” in the existing law, allowing for the resolution of all title issues within the partition action itself. The court also noted that Section 1544, which is new, provided the option of trial by jury, thus preserving constitutional guarantees. The court interpreted Section 1532, requiring tenants to “hold and be in possession,” to mean a present right to possession, not strict physical possession. The court held that this interpretation aligns with the overall purpose of the Code to avoid circuity of action and multiplicity of suits. The court quotes *Parker v. Kane* to illustrate how other states with combined law and equity courts handle such cases. The court mentions that the commissioners wanted to extend the principle embodied in section 1537 (dealing with heirs and devisees) to all cases through the provisions of section 1543.