Uncategorized

From This is an appendix with maps of Heirs’ Property in Orange County This is an appendix with maps of Heirs’ Property in Orange County…

From This report gives detailed information about Heirs’ Property holdings in Orange County, NC. This report gives detailed information about Heirs’ Property holdings in Orange…

Sidberry Family, New Hanover County File No. 03 SP 0726

Two of 19 Sidberry heirs filed a partition action relating to property that had been in their family since 1871. The property consisted of 8.8 acres in Wilmington, New Hanover County near Market Street. It was described as “virtually undeveloped land in an area that has been developed for both commercial and residential purposes” in the pleadings. A 1911 will devised the property to the Sidberry and the Wallace children. However, the Wallace children have not been heard of since 1911. Nevertheless, through the partition action the property was sold for $495,000 and $254,652.47 was placed in a trust account with the clerk of court for the unknown heirs of the Wallace children. Before the remaining funds were distributed among the Sidberry heirs, who have been taking care of the property for the last 90 years, $21,546 was given to the attorneys, $3,000 to the commissioner, and $49,500 for real estate commission. The Sidberrys originally sought to clarify that one of them could place a trailer on the property. Today they believe they have been dispossessed of their rightful inheritance and have retained counsel to seek to recover the amount placed in trust for the unknown heirs.

Partitions come in two forms, partition in-kind or a partition sale. A partition in-kind physically divides the property among owners. The law in most states provides that this method of partition is preferred. North Carolina’s statutes, for example, states that the court shall order the sale of property only where it finds by preponderance of the evidence that an actual physical partition cannot be made without substantial injury to any interested party. N.C.G.S. 46-22(a) (emphasis added). Substantial injury is further defined as, “the fair market value of each share in an in-kind partition would be materially less than the share of each cotenant in the money equivalent …obtained from the sale of the whole, and if an in-kind division would result in material impairment of the cotenant’s rights.” N.C.G.S. 46-22(b). In practice, however, partition in-kind appears less favored by judges.

The quicker partition sale, which sends the property to the auction block, allows ownership to vest in the highest bidder. Partition sales are thought to be one of the primary causes of involuntary black land loss in recent times. The reason is that those who can afford to purchase property on the open market are more often developers with deep pockets instead of cash poor families. Individuals purchasing heirs’ property off the auction block can pay more cash for the property; but, it is those whose heritage is tied to the lands who attach the deepest value. Partition sales separate families from their heritage and their homes. If heirs’ property is purchased by an outside party for development, those tenants living on the land are displaced. At this point, heirs’ property intersects with issues of fair and affordable housing. Families, generally having limited income, may find themselves without a home and in need of affordable housing.

Partition sales can have devastating effects on heirs’ property and fair housing. It is important, therefore, that heirs’ property be identified. If those persons with an ownership interest can be identified, educated, and guided through the problems associated with heirs’ property, their heritage may be secured and ramifications effecting fair housing avoided. For these reasons the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, beginning in June 2008, conducted research to determine the extent to which heirs’ property, partition sales, and black land loss is occurring in Orange County, North Carolina.

Narrative of SCSJ's Orange County Heirs' Property Study
(Part of Appendix 1, with maps)

http://www.savefreemanbeach.com

Freeman Beach, LLC v. Freeman Heirs, New Hanover County File No. 08 SP 1038

In the 20th century, Freeman Beach was well‐known as the beach, across from Seabreeze, where African Americans could enjoy the ocean front. Present‐day Freeman family members have many memories of their ancestors fishing from the beach and enjoying the natural beauty of the area. The City of Carolina Beach has converted 143 acres of the ocean‐front beach to a Park known as Freeman Park.

In dispute in this action are approximately 180 acres of undeveloped waterfront property at the northern end of Carolina Beach. The original owner of the land was a man named Alexander Freeman. He is remembered today as a notable free black man during slavery times and an incredibly brilliant entrepreneur‐agriculturist. Unlike many of his era, Alexander Freeman created a Will in 1854. Alexander’s Will left the 185 acres he owned to his son, Robert Bruce Freeman. Upon Alexander’s death, which is believed to be sometime around the beginning or during the Civil War, Robert Bruce Freeman became the owner in fee simple at the approximate age of 24. During his life, Robert Bruce Freeman took two wives, Catherine Ann Davis and Lena Swain. In total, he fathered possibly 19 or 20 children between the two marriages. When Robert later died intestate in 1902, the property was divided between all of his children and his second wife.

The partition action is filed by a developer, who claims to own approximately 72% interest in the land through what appears to have been a judgment on a defaulted loan in the 1940’s by some of Robert Freeman’s heirs, and through very recent purchases of other heirs’ interests. The remaining family members are looking for a way to preserve something of their heritage and keep some portion of the land undeveloped.

The clerk appointed a guardian selected by the Petitioner, to represent the unknown heirs as well as known heirs, of Robert Bruce Freeman.