Baker v. Chambers

7 Citing cases

  1. Becker v. MacDonald

    491 N.E.2d 210 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 4 times
    In Becker, in which three parcels of real estate were involved, after determining that the trial court had statutory authority to determine whether the property court be partitioned without the appointment of commissioners, the court noted that, further, even if it would have been error for the trial court to make the determination without commissioners, the error was invited because the parties agreed in pleadings that the property was not susceptible to division.

    II. Share of Ownership Florence next contends we failed to decide whether the rule of Baker v. Chambers (1980), Ind. App., 398 N.E.2d 1350 applies to joint tenancies. Baker says where original grantees take real estate as tenants-in-common, a rebuttable presumption of equality of shares arises.

  2. Becker v. MacDonald

    488 N.E.2d 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that the trial court erred by ordering the payment of insurance and taxes as part of specific performance where the insurance and taxes were not terms of the contract

    Shoe v. Heckley (1922), 78 Ind. App. 586, 590-591, 134 N.E. 214, 216. Florence contends this court's ruling in Baker v. Chambers (1980), Ind. App., 398 N.E.2d 1350, entitles her to be declared sole equitable owner of the entire 32.63 acres. We disagree. Baker deals only with the intent of tenants in common concerning their relative shares of ownership. It does not alter the rule of Shoe and cases cited therein concerning the type of ownership and legal effect of the deed.

  3. Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Rose

    No. 4:15-cv-00004-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 27, 2017)

    There is a rebuttable presumption that two or more persons holding title as tenants in common possess equal shares. Willett v. Clark, 542 N.E.2d 1354, 1358 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (citing Baker v. Chambers, 398 N.E.2d 1350, 1351 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)). To refute this presumption, extrinsic evidence of contribution can be shown.

  4. In Matter of Kalwitz

    CASE NO. 99-34758 HCD (Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 21, 2003)

    The debtors next asserted that the court, in allowing claims 8, 9, and 10, erroneously concluded that it did not need to address the debtors' argument about the right of contribution from partners or co-tenants. The debtors pointed to Baker v. Chambers, 398 N.E.2d 1350 (Ind.Ct.App. 1980), which expressed the "Veil-established rule . . . that when two or more persons take as tenants in common under an instrument which is silent in regard to their respective shares, there is a presumption that their shares are equal." Id. at 1351.

  5. In re Kalwitz, (Bankr.N.D.Ind. 2003)

    CASE NO. 99-34758 HCD (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Mar. 21, 2003)

    The debtors next asserted that the court, in allowing claims 8, 9, and 10, erroneously concluded that it did not need to address the debtors' argument about the right of contribution from partners or co-tenants. The debtors pointed to Baker v. Chambers, 398 N.E.2d 1350 (Ind.Ct.App. 1980), which expressed the "well-established rule . . . that when two or more persons take as tenants in common under an instrument which is silent in regard to their respective shares, there is a presumption that their shares are equal." Id. at 1351.

  6. Hallett v. Newlin

    No. 20A-PL-37 (Ind. App. Jul. 7, 2020)

    Hallett claims that she did not receive notice of Appellees' motion to reconsider, but she acknowledges that she obtained actual notice online and has neither alleged nor established any resulting prejudice. Hallett also asserts that a summary judgment motion is "not permitted by the partition statute[, ]" Appellant's Br. at 14, but she cites no authority for this assertion. Indiana Code Chapter 32-17-4 does not prohibit such motions, and this Court reviewed a summary judgment ruling in a partition action in Baker v. Chambers, 398 N.E.2d 1350 (Ind.Ct.App. 1980). Consequently, we reject Hallett's argument that the mediated agreement finally disposed of the matter and thus Appellees' motion to reconsider was untimely and they were required to provide her with "new service of process[.]"

  7. Willett v. Clark

    542 N.E.2d 1354 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 34 times

    It was undisputed that by the warranty deed, Willett and Clark were co-tenants of the VanBibber real estate. They also owned Yellow Banks jointly. When two or more persons take as tenants in common under an instrument which is silent in regard to their respective shares, there is a presumption that their shares are equal. Baker v. Chambers (1980), Ind. App., 398 N.E.2d 1350. This presumption is rebuttable, however, and extrinsic evidence, such as contribution, can be shown to refute it. Id.