IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GARVIN COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
KENNETH G. KEEL and LINDA J. GEARY KEEL, husband and wife; and
WILLIAM LOUIS "LOU" KEEL, individually and on behalf of ELIZABETH LYNN KEEL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ROBERT T. KEEL, an individual;
ROBERT BEMO, an individual;
LYNDON KEEL, an individual;
L. JAY KEEL, an individual;
ESTATE OF NINA RUTH MOSS, DECEASED, by and through ROBERT T. KEEL, Personal Representative;
THE UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, TRUSTEES, AND ASSIGNS OF NINA RUTH MOSS, DECEASED;
THE UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, TRUSTEES, AND ASSIGNS OF BETTY LUCAS, DECEASED;
THE UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, TRUSTEES, AND ASSIGNS OF LELAND DAVID KEEL, DECEASED;
THE UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, TRUSTEES, AND ASSIGNS OF JIMMIE EARL KEEL, DECEASED;
THE UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, TRUSTEES, AND ASSIGNS OF LOUVETA WILSON, A/K/A VETA (KEEL) WILSON, DECEASED;
MAXIMILIAN JAMES WILSON, an individual;
LUANN MILLER, an individual;
STEVE LUCAS, an individual; and
YVONNE KEEL, an individual.
Defendants.
PETITION FOR PARTITION OF REAL PROPERTY
COME NOW Plaintiffs, Kenneth G. Keel and Linda J. Geary Keel, and William Louis “Lou” Keel, individually and on behalf of Elizabeth Lynn Keel (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, and for their Petition for Partition of Real Property, state as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over partition actions pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1501 et seq.
2. Venue is proper in Garvin County, Oklahoma, because the subject property is situated in Garvin County, Oklahoma.
II. PARTIES
A. Named Plaintiffs
3. Plaintiff Kenneth G. Keel and Plaintiff Linda J. Geary Keel are husband and wife who hold a 1/10 undivided interest in the subject property by virtue of deeds recorded June 22, 2020 (Book 2313, Page 208), July 13, 2020 (Book 2315, Page 286), and June 21, 2024 (Book 2480, Pages 220 and 231) in the land records of Garvin County, Oklahoma.
4. Plaintiff William Louis “Lou” Keel is an individual who claims a 1/10 undivided interest in the subject property (1/20 for himself and 1/20 on behalf of Elizabeth Lynn Keel, for whom he holds power of attorney) as the heirs of Jimmie Earl Keel, deceased, whose 1/10 interest is of record via Case No. PB-84-18.
B. Named Defendants
5. Defendant Robert T. Keel is an individual holding a 9/40 undivided interest in the subject property by virtue of decrees in Oklahoma Case Nos. PB-84-18 and PB-2015-857 and quitclaim deeds recorded June 9, 2014 (Book 2061, Pages 801-804).
6. Defendant Robert Bemo is an individual holding a 1/10 undivided interest in the subject property by virtue of the decree in Oklahoma Case No. PB-2004-1363.
7. Defendant Lyndon Keel is an individual holding a 1/30 undivided interest in the subject property by virtue of the decree in Oklahoma Case No. PB-2009-81.
8. Defendant L. Jay Keel is an individual holding a 1/30 undivided interest in the subject property by virtue of the decree in Oklahoma Case No. PB-2009-81.
9. Defendant, the Estate of Nina Ruth Moss, Deceased, by and through Robert T. Keel, Personal Representative, holds a 5/40 undivided interest in the subject property. The Estate of Nina Ruth Moss (Probate Case No. PB-2020-489) remains open with no decree of distribution entered.
10. The unknown heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, trustees, and assigns of Nina Ruth Moss, deceased ("Unknown Heirs of Nina Ruth Moss"), are named as defendants with respect to the same 5/40 undivided interest described in Paragraph 10 above. On information and belief, Nina Ruth Moss died in 2020 and her probate (Case No. PB-2020-489) remains incomplete. Therefore, her heirs remain legally undetermined. Out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiffs will serve not only the Personal Representative of the open Estate, but will also serve the legally undetermined heirs by publication pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(C)(3)(c).
11. The unknown heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, trustees, and assigns of Betty Lucas, deceased ("Unknown Heirs of Betty Lucas"), are named as defendants with respect
to a 5/40 undivided interest in the subject property derived from Case No. PB-84-18 and Case No. PB-2015-857. Betty Lucas is deceased and no probate has been filed for her estate. The identities and addresses of her heirs are legally undetermined and therefore officially unknown. Service by publication is appropriate pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(C)(3)(c). Nevertheless, the two individuals believed to be her children (Steve Lucas and LuAnn Miller) are named as Defendants for notice purposes, as set forth below.
12. The unknown heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, trustees, and assigns of Leland David Keel, deceased ("Unknown Heirs of Leland David Keel"), are named as defendants with respect to a 5/40 undivided interest in the subject property derived from Case No. PB-84-18 and Case No. PB-2015-857. Leland David Keel is "now deceased" as reflected in 2022 filings in Case No. PB-2020-489. The identities and addresses of his heirs are legally undetermined and therefore officially unknown. Service by publication is appropriate pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(C)(3)(c). Nevertheless, the individual believed to be his heir and surviving spouse (Yvonne Keel) is named as a Defendant for notice purposes, as set forth below.
13. The unknown heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, trustees, and assigns of Jimmie Earl Keel, deceased ("Unknown Heirs of Jimmie Earl Keel"), are named as defendants with respect to a 1/10 undivided interest in the subject property derived from Case No. PB-84-18. Jimmie Earl Keel died December 6, 2013. The Unknown Heirs of Jimmie Earl Keel are named to provide notice and opportunity to appear. Service by publication is appropriate pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(C)(3)(c). On information and belief, Plaintiffs William Louis "Lou" Keel and Elizabeth Keel are the children and heirs of Jimmie Earl Keel with regard to the subject property, but they have not yet been legally determined as such. William Louis "Lou" Keel and Elizabeth Keel are co-plaintiffs in this action and therefore have actual notice of these proceedings.
14. The unknown heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, trustees, and assigns of Louveta Wilson, a/k/a Veta (Keel) Wilson, deceased ("Unknown Heirs of Louveta Wilson"), are named as defendants with respect to a 1/30 undivided interest in the subject property derived from Case No. PB-2009-81. Louveta Wilson, a/k/a Veta (Keel) Wilson is deceased and no probate has been filed for her estate. The identities and addresses of her heirs are legally undetermined and therefore officially unknown. Service by publication is appropriate pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(C)(3)(c). Nevertheless, the individual believed to be her heir and surviving spouse (Maximilian James Wilson) is named as a Defendant for notice purposes, as set forth below.
15. Steve Lucas is named as a Defendant for notice purposes, because he is believed to be an heir and son of Betty Lucas, deceased, but his heirship is not legally determined of record.
16. LuAnn Miller is named as a Defendant for notice purposes, because she is believed to be an heir and daughter of Betty Lucas, deceased, but her heirship is not legally determined of record.
17. Yvonne Keel is named as a Defendant for notice purposes, because she is believed to be an heir and the surviving spouse of Leland David Keel, deceased, but such heirship is not legally determined of record.
18. Maximilian James Wilson is named as a Defendant for notice purposes, because he is believed to be the heir and surviving spouse of Louveta Wilson, a/k/a Veta (Keel) Wilson, deceased, but such heirship is not legally determined of record.
III. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
19. The subject property is described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Subject Property”).
20. This action concerns surface rights only. This partition action shall not alter, change, or affect the current undivided ownership of mineral interests in the Subject Property, to the extent any party owns such interests.
21. The Subject Property is situated in Garvin County, Oklahoma.
IV. PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE AND STANDING
22. Plaintiffs are co-tenants holding undivided interests in the Subject Property.
23. Plaintiffs Kenneth G. Keel and Linda J. Geary Keel hold a 1/10 undivided interest in the Subject Property by virtue of deeds duly recorded in the land records of Garvin County, Oklahoma.
24. Plaintiff William Louis “Lou” Keel claims a 1/10 undivided interest in the Subject Property (1/20 for himself and 1/20 for Elizabeth Lynn Keel, for whom he holds power of attorney) as the sole heirs at law of Jimmie Earl Keel, deceased, whose 1/10 interest is of record via Case No. PB-84-18. Plaintiffs seek judicial determination of this heirship pursuant to Count II herein.
25. Plaintiffs have actual or constructive possession of the Subject Property consistent with their co-tenancy.
26. Cotenancy existed at the time of filing this action.
V. OWNERSHIP SCHEDULE — RECORD TITLE
27. The Subject Property is owned and held in undivided interests as follows:
<table>
<tr>
<th>Owner</th>
<th>Interest</th>
<th>Source of Title</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Robert T. Keel</td>
<td>9/40</td>
<td>PB-84-18; PB-2015-857; Quitclaim Deeds 2014</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Robert Bemo</td>
<td>1/10</td>
<td>PB-2004-1363</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Kenneth G. Keel & Linda J. Geary Keel</td>
<td>1/10</td>
<td>Deeds 2020, 2024</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lyndon Keel</td>
<td>1/30</td>
<td>PB-2009-81</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>L. Jay Keel</td>
<td>1/30</td>
<td>PB-2009-81</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Estate of Nina Ruth Moss / Unknown Heirs of Nina Ruth Moss</td>
<td>5/40</td>
<td>PB-84-18; PB-2015-857</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Undetermined Heirs of Betty Lucas</td>
<td>5/40</td>
<td>PB-84-18; PB-2015-857</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Undetermined Heirs of Leland David Keel</td>
<td>5/40</td>
<td>PB-84-18; PB-2015-857</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Undetermined Heirs of Jimmie Earl Keel</td>
<td>1/10</td>
<td>PB-84-18</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Undetermined Heirs of Louveta Wilson, a/k/a Veta (Keel) Wilson</td>
<td>1/30</td>
<td>PB-2009-81</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>TOTAL</th>
<th>100%</th>
<th></th>
</tr>
</table>
28. The foregoing ownership schedule identifies all parties holding legal interests in the Subject Property as reflected by record title or by operation of law upon the death of record title holders.
29. Defendants Steve Lucas, LuAnn Miller, Yvonne Keel, and Maximilian James Wilson are named solely for notice purposes as legally undetermined heirs of deceased record owners. They are not alleged to hold any current legal interest in the Subject Property. Their inclusion as Defendants does not expand or alter the fractional interests set forth above for purposes of this partition.
VI. RIGHT TO PARTITION WITHOUT PRIOR PROBATE OR HEIRSHIP DETERMINATION FOR OTHER CO-OWNERS
30. Under Oklahoma law, the right to partition is absolute. Clark v. Kinder, 269 P.2d 345 (Okla. 1954) ("The rights of a cotenant cannot be suspended because of the death of a tenant in common" and "the right of partition is absolute").
31. A co-owner need not await probate of deceased co-owners’ estates before exercising the right to partition. Weaver v. Laub, 574 P.2d 609 (Okla. 1977), held that “it is the function of the probate proceeding to determine heirs at law, and not the function of a partition proceeding.”
32. Title 84 O.S. § 257 uses permissive language (“may be judicially determined”), confirming that heirship determination is a procedural option, not a mandatory prerequisite to partition. Title 12 O.S. § 1502 authorizes partition where interests are “unknown, contingent or doubtful,” requiring only that these facts be set forth with reasonable certainty.
33. Plaintiffs seek a determination of death and heirship only as to Jimmie Earl Keel (Count II) because Plaintiff Lou Keel claims through that decedent. Plaintiffs do not seek, and are not obligated to pursue, heirship determinations for other deceased co-owners. Those parties’ heirs may establish their rights through their own probate or quiet title proceedings.
34. Service by publication on unknown heirs is valid under 12 O.S. § 2004(C)(3)(c) and 12 O.S. § 177.1. Haymes v. McDermott, 256 P. 908 (Okla. 1927), held that district courts have jurisdiction to “bring in all unknown heirs and render judgment that will be conclusive against all claimants.”
35. A partition sale conveys clear title to the purchaser. Unknown heirs’ interests attach to the proceeds, not the property.
36. Plaintiffs will seek distribution only of proceeds attributable to their established interests. Proceeds attributable to interests held by unknown heirs, estates, or parties whose heirship is undetermined shall be held or deposited with the Court pending subsequent proceedings by parties with standing to claim such proceeds. Jones v. Hayton, 329 P.2d 1056 (Okla. 1958) (“proceedings for the distribution of the proceeds in a partition proceeding are equitable”).
VII. COUNT I: PARTITION OF REAL PROPERTY
37. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
38. Plaintiffs and Defendants are co-owners of the Subject Property as tenants in common. Plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the Subject Property under 12 O.S. § 1501 et seq.
39. There are no mortgages, liens, or monetary encumbrances affecting the Subject Property. The Subject Property is subject to various easements of record for utilities, transportation, and related purposes, which run with the land and do not affect the right to partition.
40. Due to the number of co-owners and the nature of the Subject Property, Plaintiffs believe partition in kind is impractical. However, this determination is formally left to the commissioners to be appointed pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1506. Plaintiffs believe that the large number of small fractional interests would make it practically impossible to divide the property in kind in a fair and expedient manner. However, in the event the commissioners and the court deem it practical, feasible, and appropriate to partition the property in kind, notwithstanding the large number of fractional interests and the obvious complexity of division into such numerous tracts, Plaintiffs would be open to partition in kind assuming it can be done in a timely and equitable manner.
41. If the commissioners determine that partition in kind cannot be made without manifest injury, the statutory process provides that any party may elect to purchase the Subject Property at its appraised value pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1512. If no party so elects, or if multiple parties elect in opposition to each other, Plaintiffs request partition by sale pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1513.
VIII. MINERAL INTERESTS
42. This action concerns surface rights only.
43. This partition action shall not alter, change, or affect the current undivided ownership of mineral interests in the Subject Property, to the extent any party owns such interests.
44. Any partition sale shall convey surface rights only.
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for judgment as follows:
1. That the Court determine the respective ownership interests of all parties in the Subject Property as set forth herein;
2. That the Court appoint three commissioners pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1506 to partition the Subject Property or, if partition in kind cannot be made without manifest injury, to appraise the value of the Subject Property;
3. That if partition in kind is not feasible and no party elects to purchase the Subject Property at its appraised value, the Court order the Subject Property sold pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1513, with sale to be made at not less than two-thirds of the appraised value;
4. That any sale convey surface rights only, without altering the current undivided ownership of mineral interests;
5. That proceeds from sale attributable to Plaintiffs’ established interests be distributed to Plaintiffs;
6. That proceeds attributable to interests held by unknown heirs, estates, or parties whose heirship is undetermined be held or deposited with the Court pending subsequent proceedings by parties with standing to claim such proceeds, or as the Court otherwise directs;
7. That costs of this action, including reasonable attorney fees, be apportioned among the parties according to their respective interests in the Subject Property pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1516, to be paid from sale proceeds; and
8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Jones, OBA No. 33013
Jones Property Law, PLLC
517 Liberty Lane, STE 100
Edmond, Oklahoma 73034
Telephone: (405) 888-2744
Email:
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
The NW/4 and the N/2 N/2 SW/4 and the West 96 acres of a 200 acre tract described as the NE/4 and the N/2 N/2 SE/4 of Section 28, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the I.B.M., Garvin County, Oklahoma.
(Surface Rights Only)
