AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute over the partition of property based on the recommendations of a special master. The property in question was to be partitioned as provided by a trust. The defendant, Gina Louise Harris, trustee of the Gina Louise Harris Trust, appealed the district court's order of partition that followed the special master's recommendations.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant (Gina Louise Harris): Argued that the district court did not have the authority to partition the property because the terms laid out in the memorandum of understanding ordered the land to be partitioned as provided by the trust. The defendant also contended that she did not agree to the partition as ultimately ordered by the district court and that she could not waive appealable issues for any other party (paras 3-4).
• Plaintiffs-Appellees (Wayne Harris Carruth and Jeremy Quinn Carruth): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had the authority to partition the property as it did, despite the defendant's claims to the contrary.
• Whether the defendant preserved her objection to the district court’s ruling regarding the partition.
• Whether the objections raised by Defendants Carruth and Bovia at the hearing were timely and whether they were properly parties to the appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order of partition (para 8).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges Megan P. Duffy, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Zachary A. Ives, found that the defendant, Gina Louise Harris, did not preserve her objection to the district court’s ruling on the partition. The court noted that the defendant's agreement to partition was not conditioned on the partition being identical to the one proposed by the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the court concluded that Defendants Carruth and Bovia were not properly before the court as they did not file their own notices of appeal nor did they sign the notice of appeal filed by Defendant Harris. The court also rejected the argument that Defendants Carruth and Bovia's objections to the special master’s recommendations were timely, noting that they had ample opportunity to respond to the recommendations and failed to do so. The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as those represented by counsel and that Defendants Carruth and Bovia had sufficient time to retain new counsel but chose not to. Lastly, the court denied Defendant Harris' motion to amend her docketing statement, finding the issues raised were not viable (paras 2-7).