- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
MS Attorneys: Property Law Question
Posted on 5/11/15 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 5/11/15 at 9:48 pm
Trying to help a friend up there, but ignorant of common law.
Here in LA a co-owner of immovable property has the right to force a sale of said land.
A MS attorney just advised my friend that even he has a 75% interest in the land, he cannot force a sale. At worst, it would go to court to be partitioned.
An attorney in Jackson or northeast of Jackson would be helpful as this may get into court.
Here in LA a co-owner of immovable property has the right to force a sale of said land.
A MS attorney just advised my friend that even he has a 75% interest in the land, he cannot force a sale. At worst, it would go to court to be partitioned.
An attorney in Jackson or northeast of Jackson would be helpful as this may get into court.
11
Posted on 5/11/15 at 9:50 pm to Tiger Attorney
you probably need to change your username
Posted on 5/11/15 at 9:50 pm to Tiger Attorney
Now, now... Not all of you practicing attorneys who went through hell to get your JD take turns answering the fine young man...
One at a time, please!
One at a time, please!
Posted on 5/11/15 at 9:51 pm to Tiger Attorney
I'll help out in exchange for a bottle of cured oak. I emailed you about that, by the way.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 9:53 pm to Tiger Attorney
Hey TA.
This is true only if the property is not subject to partition in kind, right?
This does not make sense. I would think that a partition would be favored. A court ordered sale would be the only resolution if the property can't be partitioned.
quote:
Here in LA a co-owner of immovable property has the right to force a sale of said land.
This is true only if the property is not subject to partition in kind, right?
quote:
A MS attorney just advised my friend that even he has a 75% interest in the land, he cannot force a sale. At worst, it would go to court to be partitioned.
This does not make sense. I would think that a partition would be favored. A court ordered sale would be the only resolution if the property can't be partitioned.
This post was edited on 5/11/15 at 9:58 pm
Posted on 5/11/15 at 9:55 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
you probably need to change your username
I wouldn't expect an attorney in one state to know the property laws in another. Especially for a relatively obscure situation.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 9:57 pm to Tiger Attorney
In matters such as this, one must ask one's self, what arcane and burdensome subtleties of law would keep a State of the Union safely and securely at dead last in nearly all measurable categories.
With this concept understood, the aforementioned and described onerous limitation on property rights makes exquisitely perfect sense.
tl/dr: Is this a fact? I can't call it, I just know Mississippi has some stupid-arse folks.
With this concept understood, the aforementioned and described onerous limitation on property rights makes exquisitely perfect sense.
tl/dr: Is this a fact? I can't call it, I just know Mississippi has some stupid-arse folks.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 10:13 pm to Tiger Attorney
quote:
A MS attorney just advised my friend that even he has a 75% interest in the land, he cannot force a sale. At worst, it would go to court to be partitioned.
Don't know about MS, but in many states "partition" includes, and can often mean, "partition by sale." i.e. the court "partitions" the property by ordering it sold and splitting up the proceeds. My guess is that it just depends on the situation. Also may be that MS really doesn't do that.
This post was edited on 5/11/15 at 10:17 pm
Posted on 5/11/15 at 11:45 pm to Tiger Attorney
Posted on 5/11/15 at 11:52 pm to TSLG
LINK /
Ok, I am that bored.
It looks very similar to LA law; however, most of that language looks pretty foreign.
LINK /
Also, it allows attorney's fees to be taxed as costs and taken from the proceeds of the sale or as a lien on each property if partitioned in kind.
Ok, I am that bored.
It looks very similar to LA law; however, most of that language looks pretty foreign.
LINK /
Also, it allows attorney's fees to be taxed as costs and taken from the proceeds of the sale or as a lien on each property if partitioned in kind.
This post was edited on 5/12/15 at 12:07 am
Posted on 5/11/15 at 11:58 pm to Tiger Attorney
No offense, but if you can't Google this and figure it out but instead turn to an Internet message board known for mesogeny and borderline inability to function in normal society, you may be getting a visit from the ol' bar soon.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 11:59 pm to Tiger Attorney
quote:
A MS attorney just advised my friend that even he has a 75% interest in the land, he cannot force a sale. At worst, it would go to court to be partitioned.
So you already spoke to a MS attorney but didn't like the answer. Well you've certainly come to the right place.
Posted on 5/12/15 at 12:00 am to Tiger Attorney
quote:
A MS attorney just advised my friend that even he has a 75% interest in the land, he cannot force a sale. At worst, it would go to court to be partitioned.
You just described a partition by licitation rather than in kind. Why is that the "worst" situation under Mississippi law? You still have to go to court for that in Louisiana.
This post was edited on 5/12/15 at 12:01 am
Posted on 5/12/15 at 12:06 am to Tiger Attorney
quote:
A MS attorney just advised my friend that even he has a 75% interest in the land, he cannot force a sale. At worst, it would go to court to be partitioned.
It could be the liquor, but isn't this identical to LA law?
Am I missing the portion of the code or the RS that allows a person to extrajudicially "force" a partition?
Posted on 5/12/15 at 12:08 am to 3HourTour
Can you re-email with the offer...I was swamped with emails...I have traded or trade 4 bottles and gave away 2 so far.
I didn't Google bc I want to speak with a MS attorney not wiki on the matter. I feel a Co owner should always have the right to sell.
And to all non- attorneys...laws different greatly from civil to common law states so frick off
I didn't Google bc I want to speak with a MS attorney not wiki on the matter. I feel a Co owner should always have the right to sell.
And to all non- attorneys...laws different greatly from civil to common law states so frick off
Posted on 5/12/15 at 12:10 am to Tiger Attorney
And I answered your question. Why is it different, because you said it would take court to force a sale. It does here too.
Posted on 5/12/15 at 12:22 am to Tiger Attorney
Go read the links I posted above. It looks like any owner can bring the suit for partition. Also, it seems very similar to LA law. The court can partition in kind or by licitation.
The language looks foreign, but the concept seems to be very similar.
Make sure to talk to the MS attorney about when the court will allow attorney's fees, whether they are prorated or just split by heads, etc.
The language looks foreign, but the concept seems to be very similar.
Make sure to talk to the MS attorney about when the court will allow attorney's fees, whether they are prorated or just split by heads, etc.
Posted on 5/12/15 at 12:24 am to TSLG
Thank you..reading now
Posted on 5/12/15 at 12:28 am to Tiger Attorney
Np.
Good luck.
I just hope MS attorneys have the same confused look I had when they read about a usufruct. Lol.
Good luck.
I just hope MS attorneys have the same confused look I had when they read about a usufruct. Lol.
Posted on 5/12/15 at 12:35 am to TSLG
Hoy shite. I just read freehold, life estate, and life tenancy in one statute. My mind just got blown.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News