HELEN D. RICHARDSON,
        Plaintiff,

        vs.            Case No. 01C 186

ROBERT C. RICHARDSON,
        Defendant.

Plaintiff filed a petition for partition pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1003. The real estate, 1911 SW Bowman Court, Topeka, Kansas, is now owned by plaintiff and defendant as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common. Defendant was added as a joint tenant pursuant to a quit claim deed filed by plaintiff March 8, 1991. Plaintiff and defendant are mother and son and plaintiff resides in assisted living while defendant resides in the Kansas City area. Plaintiff proposes sale of the real estate with costs taxed against the real estate.

The above reference case came before this court for trial on December 18, 2001. Plaintiff presented evidence and rested. Defendant presented no evidence but requested an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's exhibit number one which set out an itemized list of expenses which the plaintiff alleges are expenses that should be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the house if the court orders such a sale.

Defendant presented his response to plaintiff's exhibit number one which included his request for compensation for the 13 plus weekends that he and Karol Markus plus others worked on the house. However, the request of defendant is not evidence as the court received no testimony either in person or by affidavit from Mr. Richardson. While Mrs. Richardson, through her attorney, doesn't dispute that Mr. Richardson and Karol Markus worked on the house, she objects to his claim for payment for personal services as she believed that he should not expect to be compensated as he is her son.

This court has not been provided with the full history of the disagreement between Mrs. Richardson and Mr. Richardson regarding the house that they jointly own. Apparently two options related to the house have been considered by the parties: renting the house or selling the house. Mr. Richardson strongly supports the first option while Mrs. Richardson (because of her financial situation) feels that the second option is her only choice. In either case, the parties would presumably benefit from the work that has been done on the house. Mr. Richardson objects to sharing the payment of utilities, taxes, etc. because he believes that his mother's indecision regarding the house has caused the delay and the expenses. However, the lack of an agreement between mother and son caused the delay and the continuation of expenses related to the house. While it is very unfortunate that these expenses have accrued due to the parties' standoff regarding the house, the expenses are ones that are appropriate to tax to the costs of the real estate. Therefore, the court orders that all the costs set forth in plaintiff's exhibit number one are to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the house or if the house is not sold the expenses are to be shared equally between the parties. The total listed in exhibit number one is $6,370.42. In addition, the court would order any additional ongoing expenses such as insurance, utilities, taxes, and costs of sale, etc. to be taxed to the costs as well. Additional expenses in the amount of $565.19 were submitted with the updated itemized list and the court would approve those expenses as well. The court does not include defendant's request for compensation as part of the costs taxed to the property as defendant's request is not evidence before the court.

The court finds that Helen D. Richardson and Robert C. Richardson are joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common and therefore each have an undivided one-half interest in the following property:

North Half (N ½) of Lot Forty-five (45) on Bowman Court in Sunset View Addition to the City of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, commonly known as 1911 SW Bowman Court, Topeka, Kansas, 66604.

This court further finds that this property is a single family dwelling and is not subject to partition in kind, therefore, this court will provide a period of 30 days for either party to take the property at the appraised value. The court has not ordered an appraisal pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1003 as neither party has requested such an appraisal. Therefore, the appraised value the court is referring to is the 2001 Shawnee County Appraiser's value. If either party objects to that appraisal such objection must be made within 10 days of receipt of this decision and the court will order an appraisal pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1003 with the costs taxed to the property.

If neither party so elects to take the property, this court orders that the property be sold. If the parties cannot agree to the logistics of selling the property, ie. which realtor to list the house, listing price, etc., the court, upon request from either party, will order that the sheriff sell the property in the manner provided for sale of property on execution.

The above constitutes this court's findings and conclusions of law and no further journal entry is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this day of February, 2002.

 
_______________
Nancy Parrish
District Judge, Third Judicial District
Division Fourteen

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER was mailed this 11th day of February , 2002, to the following:

 
Junior F. Elder
5133 SW Brentwood Rd.
Topeka, Kansas 66606

 
Pedro L. Irigonegaray
1535 SW 29th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66611

 
___________________
Norma J. Dunnaway
Administrative Assistant