This is for the smart legal minds out there. I think I see a problem, but I am not sure.
Co-Ownership, in all its forms, gives each co-tenant the right to use, occupy and possess each part of the property, but not exclusively. Co-tenants may not exclude other co-tenants right of such tenants from possessing, using or occupying the same part of parcel. This undivided right of possession forms the basis of the co-tenancy relationship.
Co-tenants may terminate the co-tenancy at any time by partitioning, which changes the co-ownership to sole ownership. Partitioning divides the property according to value, not area, and may occur either voluntarily or judicially.
Voluntary partitioning requires an agreement among the co-tenants to divide the property in a certain manner.
After exchanging deeds, each former co-tenant owns a certain parcel outright.
Judicial partitioning is done by the court. If the court finds the property cannot be divided fairly and equally, it orders the property to be sold with all the proceeds divided among the owners according to their undivided interest.
HERE IS MY ISSUE.
A royalty buyer attempts to purchase a royalty or mineral interest. The royalty or mineral owner refuses. The buyer then says, "Well, just sell me half (or a quarter, or whatever)." The buyer has just created a co-tenancy situation if the transaction transpires.
He is a clever, devious mineral/royalty buyer and knows that a well is to be drilled and has a high probability of success. He then offers to buy the rest of the interest and the seller refuses.
At this point cannot he go to the court for a judicial partition of the property in value and at the sale, be the highest bidder and own the entire property outright? This clever buyer has the deeper pockets and has placed himself in a position to capture all of the interest of his co-tenant.
I would think that a sale of a portion of rights could include a stipulation that neither buyer nor seller will judicially partition the property.
Does my thinking hold water? Is this a potential problem waiting to happen?
Thanks for everybody taking a look at this and offering opinions. I would appreciate opinions from legal minds.
Best,
Buddy Cotten