This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Mary died and left her estate to her three children; Marion (D), Anne (P), and Winfield. The three executed a written agreement delineating how the substantial real property inherited from their mother would be divided. Winfield received the bulk of the family's farm adjacent to his residence, while P and D received, as tenants in common, some farmland, a beach house at Edisto Island, and a number of commercial properties. P and D agreed to manage their properties together, and each deposited $3,000.00 in a banking account under the name Shecut Investments. They did not execute a partnership agreement nor otherwise, reduce their management agreement to writing. P and D maintained the beach house as a rental property through 1995. Things turned caustic between P and D. In January 1996 D, without consulting P, made the beach house his primary residence, and ceased renting the house. P testified that D told her in March 1996 that she was not welcome to use the beach house and that he changed the locks. D claimed he changed the locks after the house was vandalized on June 13, 1997. D suspected P committed the vandalism. The stories of both P and D varied significantly. P sued D and a master ordered the property granted Anne and Bo in the private agreement divided in-kind, with the exception of the beach house, which he ordered sold at public auction. The master found D had not committed ouster and awarded P no rent for the time D was in exclusive possession of the house. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that P offered no evidence of either ouster or exclusion. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.