Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Simon v. Underwood

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Champaign

May 19, 2017

SUSAN C. SIMON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
JAY A. UNDERWOOD, et al. Defendants-Appellants

         Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court T.C. NO. 14CV131

          DAVID A. SKROBOT, Atty., ROBERT J. SIMON, Atty., Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees

          WAYNE E. SOUTHWARD, Atty., GREGORY R. FLAX, Atty. Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Jay A. Underwood and John J. Underwood

          OPINION

          DONOVAN, J.

         {¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of brothers Jay A. Underwood and John J. Underwood, filed July 15, 2016 (collectively, "the brothers"). The brothers appeal from the June 30, 2016 decision of the trial court overruling their objections to the report of the Commissioner, which concluded that property devised by their father's Last Will and Testament ("will") to them and their sisters, Susan Simon and Sara Thompson (collectively, "the sisters"), as life-tenants-in-common, cannot be equitably partitioned between the four siblings. We hereby affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         {¶ 2} The sisters filed a complaint against the brothers on August 5, 2014. Jay, John, Susan and Sara are the children of J.A. Underwood ("Underwood"). Pursuant to Underwood's June 8, 1981 will, the siblings each received an equal and undivided life estate in: 1) a 25 acre lot identified as parcel no. G21-07-11-09-00-016-00; 2) a 115 acre lot identified as parcel nos. G21-07-11-24-00-014-00; and 3) a 6.7 acre lot identified as parcel nos. G21-07-11-09-00-002-01 and G21-07-11-10-00-008-00 (collectively, "the Property").

         {¶ 3} A copy of the will is attached to the complaint and provides in relevant part as follows:

I give and devise all of my real property of my real estate, wheresoever situate, to my wife, Alice L. Underwood, for and during the term of her natural life or so long as she may remain unmarried.
After the death of my wife, or in the event or her remarriage, the interest in remainder in said real estate in which I have devised to her a life estate, I give and devise to my four children, Susan C. Simon, Sara Beth Underwood, John Jeffry Underwood and Jay A. Underwood for and during the term of their natural lives.
After the death or remarriage of my wife and upon the death of all of my four children, the interest in remainder in said real estate I give, devise and bequeath to all of my grandchildren living at the death of the last of my four children, equally, share and share alike, absolutely and in fee simple.

         {¶ 4} The complaint further alleges that on December 20, 2007, the siblings created the Underwood Family Partnership ("UFP"), an Ohio general partnership. According to the complaint, the "UFP has failed to be an effective way to manage the Property as the Property is not being properly managed, the partners are deadlocked on major decisions, the financial potential of the Property is not being met, and the partners of the UFP are not acting in the best interests of the UFP." Specifically, the complaint alleges that on January 1, 2013, the Property was appraised at $763, 000.00, but in 2012, the UFP made a profit of only $5, 466.00, to be divided between the siblings.

         {¶ 5} According to the complaint, the brothers refuse to cooperate in the efficient operation of the UFP and to pay reasonable rental values for the Property. The complaint sets forth the following rents, which are allegedly "well below fair market value": 1) Jay rents 20.27 acres of the 115-acre lot for $80.00 per acre per year; 2) Jay rents a 25-acre lot and pays rent of $200.00 per acre per year; 3) John rents 30.23 acres of the 115-acre lot and pays $80.00 per acre per year; and 4) John "does not pay rent for approximately 2 acres of the 115 acre [lot] where his home resides, approximately 18 acres of the 115 acre lot for grazing cattle, and approximately 4.3 acres of the 115 lot for growing hay." The complaint alleges that the rental prices are below market value and "the UFP could not reach an agreed upon rental amount for the Property and the Defendants have used the Property without the UFP's consent."

         {¶ 6} The complaint further alleges that the brothers "have also misused and devalued the buildings and assets located on the Property." Specifically, the complaint alleges that John has harvested timber from the 115-acre lot. The complaint also alleges that on December 30, 2007, Jay's son, Lucas, entered into a rental agreement for the farmhouse on Eris Road, a condition of which required him to pay rent or "spend a certain amount of money on maintenance and improvement of the farmhouse. However, after August 2008 rental payments stopped and no receipts were provided showing repairs or improvements to the farmhouse." The complaint provides that on January 9, 2010, a "Family Partnership House Agreement was executed wherein Defendants agreed to be responsible for the maintenance of the farm house and its gravel lane." The complaint alleges that "the farmhouse has steadily deteriorated and Plaintiffs are informed and believe the farmhouse is now a safety hazard and a potential liability to all."

         {¶ 7} The complaint alleges the brothers "benefit from the Property more than the Plaintiffs despite the intentions of the UFP and Defendants refuse to change or alter the current arrangement." According to the Complaint, "the UFP is currently in a voting deadlock and the future of the Property is being jeopardized." The sisters asserted a request for partition, and claims for an accounting, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and dissolution of the partnership.

         {¶ 8} Six joint stipulations for extensions of time for Jay and John to answer the complaint were filed. On April 16, 2015, the sisters filed "Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief." Therein they sought an order authorizing them "to rent certain farm land to a third party and for a preliminary injunction restricting Defendants Jay and John Underwood * * * from personally using this land." Ten exhibits were attached to the motion. The brothers opposed the motion on April 21, 2015, and the sisters replied on April 27, 2015.

         {¶ 9} On April 29, 2015, the trial court issued a "Journal Entry Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief." The court initially noted that "it must be mentioned that any claim of irreparable harm is undercut by Plaintiffs' willingness to extend the time for filing an answer on six occasions. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have known of the need to plan for the upcoming growing season since at least last fall's harvest." The court further noted that the sisters "have not explained why any harm resulting from Defendants' alleged failure to pay the market rate for the use of the Troy Fields cannot be addressed through their causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment." The court determined that since the sisters "have not explained why monetary damages for Defendants' alleged self-dealing would be an inadequate remedy, they are not entitled to a preliminary injunction." Finally, the court concluded that "if this Court were to find in favor of Plaintiffs on their partition claim, the source of the parties' disagreements (i.e., the farm) would be gone. The possible availability of this remedy to Plaintiff[s] is further reason not to grant a preliminary injunction."

         {¶ 10} On May 11, 2015, the sisters filed a "First Amended Complaint." Therein they asserted that pursuant to Underwood's will, "the children of the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' or their issue may obtain an interest in the Property, " and that "[a]s all of the Plaintiffs and Defendants are still living, the identities of the remaindermen are not known and may change based [upon] when the last life tenant passes." The sisters requested the court "appoint a disinterested person to act as a representative or guardian ad litem for the unknown remaindermen who may have a contingent future interest * * *."

         {¶ 11} On May 15, 2015, the brothers filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, "for failure to file a preliminary judicial report, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1), 12(B)(6), (12)(B)(7), 19(A)(2), and R.C. § 2329.191." Alternatively, the brothers requested that "the court order Plaintiffs to file a preliminary judicial report and join all necessary parties." On the same date, the sisters filed a "Notice of Filing Title Commitment."

         {¶ 12} On May 22, 2015, the court issued a "Journal Entry Setting Response Time, " ordering the sisters to respond to the motion to dismiss by May 29, 2015. In the sisters' response, they asserted as follows:

Rather than forcing potential remaindermen to be parties to this action, Plaintiffs believe a guardian or representative can be appointed to act in the best interest of the class. Such appointment would satisfy Defendants' belief all potential remaindermen must be represented in this action. Plaintiffs hope the Court will consider this option as a way of addressing the unknown remaindermen while protecting what remains of the existing family relationships.

         {¶ 13} On June 4, 2015, the court issued a "Journal Entry Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File Second Amended Complaint." The court noted that the filing of the commitment for title insurance rendered moot the brothers' argument regarding the failure to file a preliminary judicial report. Citing R.C. 5303.22, the court further noted that "[n]o distinction is made between vested and contingent future interests. Instead, all persons in being who are interested in the estate or may become interested in the estate must be made parties to the action." The court found Underwood's 13 grandchildren to be "essential parties" to the action.

         {¶ 14} On June 8, 2015, the "Reply of Defendants Jay A. Underwood and John J. Underwood in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint" was filed. On June 26, 2015, the sisters, James Patrick Thompson, Steven Charles Thompson, Isabelle Jean Thompson-Demoss, Amy Caroline Yeager, Robert Joseph Simon, and Christen Beth Simon Fails filed a "Second Amended Complaint" against the brothers, Nathan Jeffry Underwood, Heath Asbury Underwood, Zachary Ryan Underwood, Lucas Wayne Underwood, Levi Russell Underwood, Logan Lowell Underwood, and Eli Asbury Underwood, asserting a request for partition, and claims for an accounting, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and dissolution of the partnership.

         {¶ 15} On July 10, 2015, the brothers answered the amended complaint. On August 24, 2015, the "Answer of Defendants Nathan J. Underwood, Heath A. Underwood, Zachary R. Underwood, Lucas W. Underwood, Levi R. Underwood, Logan L. Underwood, and Eli A. Underwood to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint" was filed.

         {¶ 16} On September 2, 2015, the "Motion of Plaintiffs Susan Simon and Sara Thompson for the Appointment of a Commissioner and to Issue a Writ of Partition" was filed, attached to which is a proposed order. The motion provides in part as follows:

* * * As Plaintiffs have a legal right to the Property, they request the Property be partitioned and a commissioner appointed to determine if the Property can be partitioned.
After the Court's appointment, R.C. 5307.06 states "the commissioner or commissioners shall view and examine the estate and, on their oaths and having due regard to the improvements, situation, and quality of the different parts, set it apart in lots that will be most advantageous and equitable." Plaintiffs request upon appointment, the commissioner should investigate and examine the Property to determine if partition is possible. Plaintiffs ask that any physical partition of the Property take into consideration the interests of the Remaindermen as potential heirs to the Property.
In the event the Commissioner determines the partitioning of the Property would cause a manifest injury to the value of the Property or the physical partitioning of the Property is impossible or impractical, Plaintiffs request the Commissioner to appraise the Property and provide a just valuation so the parties have an opportunity to exercise their right to purchase the Property.

         {¶ 17} The Magistrate set the motion for a hearing on October 6, 2015, and the brothers moved for a continuance, or in the alternative, to set the matter for a scheduling conference. On September 30, 2015, the "Magistrate's Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Continue Hearing" was filed. Therein the Magistrate noted in part that the "Court's need to clarify the legal basis for Count One of the Second Amended Complaint was one of the reasons for scheduling a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion. This need remains unfulfilled."

         {¶ 18} Also on September 30, 2015, "Plaintiffs' Partial Opposition to Joint Motion of Defendants to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and/or Convert Same into a Scheduling Conference" was filed. Therein, the Plaintiffs asserted that they do not oppose the request for a scheduling conference, that mediation should not delay the appointment of a Commissioner, and that they have every right to move for the appointment of a Commissioner.

         {¶ 19} On October 9, 2015, a "Magistrate's Order Setting Scheduling Conference" was issued after the hearing on October 6th. The order provides in part as follows:

Extensive discussion was held concerning Count One of the Second Amended Complaint. Although captioned as a partition claim, Count One may actually be seeking relief under the disentailment statute, R. C. 5303.21, since it seeks the sale of real property, with the proceeds held in trust. There was also discussion about whether Count One should proceed separately from the remaining claims, which concern the partnership that the Underwood siblings * * * created to manage the day-today activities of the farm after they took possession as co-life tenants.

         {¶ 20} The court scheduled a conference before the Magistrate on December 2, 2015, and indicated that it "anticipates resolving the following issues":

(1) Whether Count One of the Second Amended Complaint seeks the partition of the life estate, the partition of the entire fee, disentailment pursuant to R.C. 5303.21, or some other form of relief. Plaintiffs may seek leave to amend their complaint.
(2)The names of persons to serve as commissioners should Count One of the Second Amended Complaint proceed as a partition action.
(3) Whether Count One of the Second Amended Complaint should proceed separately from the remaining causes of action.

         {¶ 21} On November 5, 2016, a "Consent for Plaintiffs to File Third Amended Complaint" was filed, along with a "Third Amended Complaint." Paragraph 24 of the newly amended complaint provides: "As Plaintiffs believe the Property cannot be physically partitioned without creating undue hardship, manifest injury, and/or substantial damage to the value of the Property, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Property be partitioned." [Sic] Section (b) of the prayer for relief of the newly amended complaint provides that Plaintiffs request "that the net proceeds from the sale of the Property or the respective life estates be distributed as the Court determines appropriate."

         {¶ 22} On November 9, 2015, "Plaintiffs Susan Simon and Sara Thompson's Renewed Motion for the Appointment of a Commissioner to Issue Writ of Partition" was filed. On November 20, 2015, the "Answer of Defendants Nathan J. Underwood, Heath A. Underwood, Zachary R. Underwood, Lucas W. Underwood, Levi R. Underwood, Logan L. Underwood, and Eli A. Underwood to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint" was filed.

         {¶ 23} On November 24, 2015, a "Memorandum of Defendants J. A. Underwood and John J. Underwood in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, " was filed. The Magistrate then set a scheduling conference to be held on December 16, 2015. On January 5, 2016, a "Motion of Defendants for Leave to File their Answer to Third Amended Complaint Instanter, " and "Agreed Entry, " and the "Answer of Defendants Jay. A. Underwood and John J. Underwood to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint" were filed.

         {¶ 24} On February 23, 2016 the court issued a "Journal Entry Ordering Partition and Appointing Commissioner." The entry provides in part as follows (footnotes omitted):

Plaintiffs Susan Celia Simon and Sara Beth Thompson, and Defendants, Jay A. Underwood and John J. Underwood, are co-life-tenants currently in possession of real property located in Champaign County * * * Upon the passing of the last life tenant, their children, if they survive all of the life tenants, will obtain a fee simple interest in the Property. If a child should predecease the last life tenant with issue, such issue shall take the deceased's child's share of the Property.
Each co-life tenant possesses an undivided one-quarter interest in the Property for the remainder of their lives. Plaintiffs, Susan Celia Simon and Sara Beth Thompson, seek to hold their respective one-quarter interests in the Property severally from the interests of Defendants, Jay A. Underwood and John J. Underwood. Wherefore, Plaintiffs, Susan Celia Simon and Sara Beth Thompson, are entitled to partition of their interests in the Property as prayed for in the Third Amended Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that partition of the co-life tenants' interest in the Property shall take place.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jerry Simpson, a suitable disinterested person, is appointed Commissioner to divide the co-life tenants' interests in the Property. The Commissioner shall view and examine the Property, taking into account the improvements, situations, location, and quality of the different parts of the Property.
If the co-life tenants' interest in the Property can be equitably divided, the Commissioner shall report that to the Court and shall set off each co-life tenants' one-quarter interest in the Property.
In dividing the Property, the Commissioner shall set off to each co-life tenant his or her interest in each of the several tracts comprising the Property, or the Commissioner may set off the share of any co-life tenant, in all tracts comprising the Property, according to the Commissioner's best discretion.
If the Commissioner divides one or more of the tracts comprising the Property, said tract(s) shall be surveyed and platted in accordance with sections 711.001 to 711.15 of the Revised Code and with the rules adopted pursuant to these sections.
If the Commissioner is of the opinion that these interests cannot be equitably divided among the life tenants, the Commissioner shall report that to the Court with a just valuation of the fee simple interest of the Property. This figure will be used to determine the value of the co-life tenants' interests in the Property. The Commissioner shall also report the reasons for concluding that the co-life tenants' interests in the Property cannot be equitably divided.
Upon receipt of the Commissioner's report, Plaintiffs' request for partition of the co-life tenants' interests in the Property will proceed in accordance with Chapter 5307 of the Revised Code.

         {¶ 25} On April 7, 2016, the court issued a "Journal Entry" that provides that the Commissioner viewed and examined the Property and forwarded his report to the Court. The entry provides in part as follows:

In his report, Commissioner Simpson concludes that * * * the co-life tenants' interests in the Property cannot be equitably divided. He has also fixed the value of the fee simple interest of the Property.
The Second District Court of Appeals has characterized the commissioner's report in a partition action to be akin to a magistrate's decision. See McGill v. Roush, 87 Ohio App.3d 66, 77, [6]21 N.E.2d 585 (2d Dist. 1993). Given this characterization, the Court will give the parties the opportunity to file written objections to Commissioner Simpson's report.

         {¶ 26} The Commissioner's report is attached to the "Journal Entry." The first page of the report provides:

On March 1[, ] 2016, I physically viewed the five parcels owned by Susan C. Simon Etal, [sic] Further described in the attached Legal Description, being case number 2014 C.V. 131, in the Champaign County Common Pleas Court.
The purpose of this viewing is to determine if it is possible to equally divide the five parcels into four equal parts.
The five parcels are approximately 2 to 4 miles apart.
A parcel on Old Troy Pike is Parcel Number G22-07-11-09-00-016-00, consisting of approximately 25.05 acres, more or less. Most of which is tillable. This is a highly productive parcel of farm land, with a good natural drainage.
Two parcels on State Route 560, being Parcel Number G22-07-11-09-00-001-01 with approximately 1.362 acre[s], more or less. This parcel has no road frontage. Parcel [N]umber G22-07-11-10-00-008-01 has approximately 5.352 acres, more or less with road frontage.
The two parcels join and are tree covered and may be in a flood zone. A surveyor could determine if these[] parcels are in a flood zone.
Land on Eris Road consists of two parcels.
One being parcel number G21-07-11-24-00-014-000 which is approximately 105.22 acres more or less.
The other parcel on Eris Road is parcel number G21-07-11-18-00-009-00 and is 10 acres, more or less.
The parcels join. Of this acreage, approximately 55 acres is tillable, according to the Champaign County FSA Office.
This farm lays in an L shape.
There is an old, two story house and various out buildings on the site.
There is also a mobile home on the site.

         Some of the subject land is very rolling and classified as Highly Erosive. Due to the distance between the five parcels and the difference in production potential and the small amount of road frontage of the [Eris] Road parcels, it is my opinion, that I cannot divide the subject land into four equal parcels.

         {¶ 27} On the following page, a "Letter of Transmittal" provides that the Eris Road parcels have an estimated market value of $490, 000.00; that the vacant land on State Route 560 has an estimated market value of $16, 500.00; and that the parcel on Old Troy Pike has an estimated market value of $230, 000.00. All estimated values are as of March 8, 2016.

         {¶ 28} Regarding the property on Old Troy Pike, the report provides as follows:

The subject lays in one field.
The topography is mostly level.

         The soil type is Fox Silt. This is a highly productive soil type and has a good natural drainage.

This subject is a very desirable parcel of land.
There are no signs of development in the immediate subject area.
Due to this fact, I see no reason to believe there will be a land use change in the near future.

         {¶ 29} The land appraisal report for the property on State Route 560 provides: "The subject is in a flood zone. None of the comparables are in a flood zone. It is my opinion [d]ue to this fact * * * an adjustment should be made as to value. Due to the fact a potential home builder would have the expense of flood insurance."

         {¶ 30} Regarding the Eris Road property, the Report provides:

The subject has two dwellings.
One is an old, one and half story single family residence.
This house appears to be in a fair condition.
The residence has two types of siding.
The roof appears to be in good condition.

         An old bank barn is in a fair to poor condition and does not meet today[']s modern farming practices.

An attached lean[-]to on this bank barn is used to store equipment.
Two, small grain bins are on the site.
Other small out buildings contribute no value, in my opinion.
An old, mobile home on a concrete foundation is also on this site.
The subject land shows much deferred maintenance.
The fence rows are over grown with trees.

         The open ditches are also over grown with trees and need to be cleared to work better.

Much of the tillable land is classified as Highly Erosive.
There are no sod water ways in place for drainage.
Many areas of the tillable land show[] erosion taking place.
The fields are sm[a]ll which makes it difficult to operate modern farm machinery in the acreage.
Much of the subject farm is wooded and there is not very much road frontage.

         {¶ 31} The attached appraisal report for the Eris Road property provide: "This appraisal is of the real estate and improvements only. No personal property is included in the estimated value of the subject."

         {¶ 32} On April 21, 2016, the "Objections of Defendants Jay A. Underwood and John J. Underwood to the Report of Commissioner Jerry L. Simpson" were filed. The brothers objected as follows:

1.The Commissioner's Report over-states the value of the subject real estate by failing to deduct, therefrom, the value of Defendant John J. Underwood's personal property and improvements, including a mobile home, water well, and septic system.
2. The Commissioner's Report includes an appraisal of the subject real estate in fee simple, but does not arrive at a value for the life tenants' estates. See R.C. § 5307.09 (stating that "the commissioner . . . shall return . . . to the court of common pleas [ ] a just valuation of the estate"). Defendants reserve the right to object to such value when it is established. In its Entry dated February 23, 2016, the Court stated that the fee simple valuation established by Commissioner Simpson will be used to calculate "the value of the co-life tenants' interests in the Property." It may be appropriate for the parties to submit briefs setting forth the proposed methodologies for valuing the life estate.
3. The Commissioner's Report fails to set forth a plan for equitably dividing the farm or a finding that it cannot be divided "without manifest injury to its value" as required by R.C. § 5307.09. See McGill v. Roush, 87 Ohio App.3d 66, 75 (Second Dist. 1993) (stating that a commissioner has a "duty to explore every reasonable possibility of equitably dividing the property"). Defendants have previously put forth, to Plaintiffs, a plan for dividing approximately 43 acres of property occupied by Defendant John J. Underwood from the balance of the farm and believe that such division can be made without causing "manifest injury." Further, such division will simplify these proceedings and obviate the need for the Court to determine the ownership and value of improvements constructed on the premises by Defendant John J. Underwood.

         Defendants respectfully request that the Court schedule a conference and/or an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issues identified above.

         {¶ 33} On April 28, 2016, a "Memorandum Contra of Plaintiffs' [sic] to Defendant Jay A. Underwood and John J. Underwood's Objections to Report of Commissioner Jerry L. Simpson" was filed. After noting that they requested the appraisal be reduced based upon the value of John's personal property and improvements to the Property, the sisters asserted that they did not object to reducing the appraisal if the brothers "can produce a sworn statement identifying which items are his personal property, were not constructed for the benefit of the family partnership, and/or provide evidence of ownership, all of which can then be provided to the Commissioner."

         {¶ 34} Regarding the valuation of the life estates, the sisters asserted that briefing "different methodologies is unnecessary as the valuation only establishes a price at which the parties can exercise their respective right to elect to purchase the property." The sisters further asserted that "R.C. 5307.06 states once the Commissioner's report is approved, one or more of the parties can elect to take the property at the appraised value. If none of the parties elect to purchase, pursuant to R.C. 5307.11, the property can be sold at auction." The sisters argued that, in the event of an auction, the "auction will determine the true value of the life estates."

         {¶ 35} Finally, the sisters noted that "Defendants propose to physically partition part of the farm and assign it to one of the life tenants, Defendant John Underwood, " a proposal the sisters asserted "fails for numerous reasons." The sisters argued that after Defendants' objections, they "are only requesting the partitioning of the four (4) life estates. Therefore, as soon as the first life tenant passes, the three remaining life tenants will be back to this court again requesting partition of the property into thirds and Defendants' proposal provides no finality." Further, the sisters argued, "Defendants' plan offers no plan to distribute the rest of the property amongst the remaining life tenants. Although Defendant John Underwood can identify what he wants from the farm, there are three (3) others that need to be equally compensated." The sisters argued that they have "previously offered to physically partition the property. However, Defendants have rejected these offers as they want to trim off the choice parts of the farm for themselves and dump the carcass on the Plaintiffs." The sisters asserted that "the value of the farm is as a single operational farm." They argued that "Defendants' proposal does not result in a single claim being resolved or party being dismissed, " contrary to Defendants' assertion that "division ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.