{"id":14283,"date":"2020-08-25T14:07:54","date_gmt":"2020-08-25T14:07:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/?p=14283"},"modified":"2020-08-25T14:07:54","modified_gmt":"2020-08-25T14:07:54","slug":"virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/","title":{"rendered":"Virginia Supreme Court: Unrepresented Parties Who Benefit From Partition Not Responsible For Plaintiff\u2019s Attorneys Fees"},"content":{"rendered":"
It is not uncommon for one party to spearhead a lawsuit that benefits others who are not represented in the litigation.\u00a0 This scenario is often the case in partition actions involving inherited real property.\u00a0 In Berry v. Fitzhugh<\/a>, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of attorney\u2019s fees to the plaintiff from other owner\u2019s shares of the property on the grounds that the attorney\u2019s services were not rendered to the other owners.<\/p>\n In 2012, five siblings \u2013 Marsha, Gregory, Lisa, Rodney, and Marilyn \u2013 inherited real property in Virginia from their mother.\u00a0 When they inherited the property, Gregory was living in the basement, and Marilyn was living in the main level.\u00a0 Marilyn moved out in 2013, and Lisa moved into the main level of the property.\u00a0 Marsha and Rodney never lived in the property.<\/p>\n In 2018, Marsha brought a partition action, and named her four siblings as defendants.\u00a0 Gregory and Lisa (the \u201crepresented siblings\u201d) opposed the action and were represented by counsel. \u00a0Marilyn and Rodney (the \u201cunrepresented siblings\u201d) did not file any pleadings opposing Marsha\u2019s complaint and appeared pro se at trial.<\/p>\n During her closing argument at trial, Marsha requested that upon the sale of the property that her attorney\u2019s fees \u201cbe shared by the unrepresented parties in this case pursuant to Virginia Code \u00a7 8.01-92.\u201d\u00a0 She also requested that all of her remaining costs in bringing the partition action be paid out of the proceeds of the sale.<\/p>\n The trial court ordered the property sold, and that the proceeds be split equally among all five siblings, finding that Marsha had not adequately proven that the distribution should be uneven because of the represented siblings occupation of the property.<\/p>\n With regard to Marsha\u2019s request for attorney\u2019s fees, the trial court stated:<\/p>\n I don’t think it’s fair for two people that were on a different side as pro se, unrepresented by counsel, [to] have to pay for services rendered to the opposing side. So I’m not going to require attorney’s fees on that matter. All parties will pay their own attorney’s\u00a0fees.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Tenants in common, joint tenants, executors with the power to sell, and coparceners of real property can bring a partition action in Virginia.\u00a0 Virginia Code 8.01-81<\/a>.\u00a0 Partition can be ordered in kind, or the property can be ordered sold, with the proceeds being distributed amongst the owners.<\/p>\n Partition is commonly used for inherited real property, where many people who never wanted to own real\u00a0 property together, end up owning real property together.\u00a0 A Virginia partition action is a vehicle to force the sale of the property so that heirs do not have to own real property together if they do not want to.<\/p>\nThe Facts Of Berry v. Fitzhugh<\/h2>\n
What Is A Partition Suit In Virginia?<\/h2>\n
Are Attorneys Fees In Virginia Partition Actions Shared Equally Among The Owners?<\/h2>\n