856 N.W.2d 705 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
In January 1996, Marian Swanson and her husband executed quit claim deeds conveying future interests in two properties to their children, Kristin Schumacher and Terrence Swanson.1 One property was a homestead located in Babbitt, Minnesota, and the other was a cabin located on White Iron Lake in Lake County, Minnesota.2 The deeds created a life estate in the two properties for Marian and reserved undivided one-half remainder interests for each of the children.3
Marian's husband died on October 20, 2007.4 On November 9, 2012, Kristin Schumacher and her then-husband conveyed their one-half remainder interests back to Marian through quit claim deeds recorded that day.5 After receiving the remainder interests, Marian brought an action for partition against Terrence.6 Terrence moved for summary judgment, and the major issue at the hearing was whether Marian could bring a partition action depending on how the district court classified her property interests.7
The district court denied Terrence's motion for summary judgment in all respects.8 The district court held a partition hearing.9 At the hearing, Marian argued for partition by sale because one property was a homestead that could not be partitioned in kind without great expense, and the other was a cabin that could not be divided because of lake-front and septic regulations. The district court found that partition by sale was appropriate.10 Terrence timely filed an appeal under Minn. Stat. § 558.215.11
Did appellant waive the right to challenge the district court's characterization of respondent's property interests?12
No. After the district court denied Terrence Swanson's motion for summary judgment upon determining that Marian Swanson had the necessary property interests to bring an action for partition, it held a partition hearing at which Marian argued for partition by sale because one property was a homestead that could not be partitioned in kind without great expense and the other was a cabin that could not be divided because of lake-front and septic regulations.15 The district court found that partition by sale was appropriate, and Terrence timely filed an appeal under Minn. Stat. § 558.215.
The order for partition provides the basis for appeal pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 558.215.16 At the partition hearing, the district court referenced the summary-judgment order, and there were no disputed facts regarding the property interests at the summary-judgment hearing.17
The district court's standing determination was a question of law.18 Because the district court found in its summary-judgment order that Marian had standing to bring an action for partition under section 558.01, this court can review the order denying summary judgment on appeal from the final judgment.19
Appellant did not waive the right to challenge the district court's characterization of respondent's property interests.20
Should Minnesota apply the merger doctrine when a person's life estate and remainder interests are united?21
When the same person holds both a life estate and a remainder interest in the same property at the same time, the life estate merges into the remainder and is extinguished, creating a fee simple interest.22
Yes. In January 1996 Marian Swanson and her husband executed quit claim deeds conveying future interests in two properties to their children Kristin Schumacher and Terrence Swanson.23 The deeds created a life estate in the two properties for Marian and reserved undivided one-half remainder interests for each of the children. Marian's husband died on October 20, 2007.
On November 9, 2012 Kristin Schumacher and her then-husband conveyed their one-half remainder interests back to Marian through quit claim deeds.24 When Marian's life estate and the one-half remainder interest united in her, the lesser life estate merged into the greater remainder estate.25 The application of the merger doctrine in this case would be similar to the application of merger involving easements.26 Foreign jurisdictions also support this result holding that the life estate is annihilated when it meets the remainder in the same owner.27
Therefore Marian's interests merged to create a fee simple in one-half of the properties.28
Minnesota should apply the merger doctrine when a person's life estate and remainder interests are united.29
Does respondent have the requisite property interest under section 558.01 to bring an action for partition?30
Under Minn. Stat. § 558.01, an action for partition may be brought by one or more persons interested as joint tenants or tenants in common in real property in which one or more have an estate of inheritance or for life or for years.31 Tenants in common must share the same right to possession, meaning they must both have present possessory interests or both have future interests.32
No. After the merger Marian Swanson holds a fee simple interest in one-half of the properties which is a present possessory estate.33 Terrence Swanson holds an undivided one-half remainder interest subject to Marian's life estate in the other half which is a future interest.34 Because Marian has a present possessory interest and Terrence has a future interest, they do not share the same right to possession and are not tenants in common under the plain meaning of section 558.01.35 The statute does not permit the owner of a fee simple interest to bring a partition action against the owner of a remainder interest.36 Therefore Marian does not have the right to bring an action for partition.37
Respondent does not have the requisite property interest under section 558.01 to bring an action for partition.38