Rule 96.03.Burdensome and Unprofitable Estates--Sale.
Part III · Rule 96: Partition of Real and Personal Property · Last amended January 1, 1981 · Last verified July 22, 2026
Full Text of Rule 96.03
Amendment History
Adopted June 5, 1980, eff. Jan. 1, 1981.
Official Comment
This is substantially the same as prior Rule 96.02.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 96.03 addresses a specific and somewhat unusual situation: a person holds a life estate or an estate for years in land, with the right to use and enjoy it now, but the property has become a financial drain instead of a benefit. Maybe the taxes, upkeep, and preservation costs outweigh whatever rent or income the land generates. The person stuck with that estate cannot walk away from it, but this rule gives them a path to court.
The holder of that burdensome estate can sue the owners of the remainder or reversion — the people who would eventually own the property outright once the life estate ends — and ask for a sale. The rule requires more than a general complaint that the property is inconvenient; the petitioner must show that a greater income could probably be earned by investing the sale proceeds in specified safe instruments, such as United States or Missouri bonds, municipal or school district bonds, or first-lien mortgage loans on Missouri land, than the property currently produces.
If the court grants the sale, it proceeds the same way any other partition sale of land not suited to physical division would proceed. From the money raised, the court first pays the costs and expenses of the lawsuit and sale, along with the commuted value of any estate that can be commuted if the owner asks for that. What is left gets invested as the rule directs, and the income from that investment goes to the person who held the life or term-of-years interest — preserving their economic position even though the underlying land is gone.
This provision converts an unproductive piece of real estate into an income-producing investment, protecting both the person who needed the current income and the remaindermen who will eventually receive the underlying value.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can bring a lawsuit under Rule 96.03?
A person holding a life estate or an estate for years with the right to immediate use and enjoyment of the land can sue the owners of the remainder or reversion.
What has to be shown to justify a sale under this rule?
The petitioner must show that the costs of taxes, upkeep, and preservation exceed the reasonable value of the rents and profits, and that investing the sale proceeds in the specified safe instruments would likely produce more income than the land does now.
What kinds of investments does the rule name for the sale proceeds?
Bonds of the United States, Missouri, a municipality, or a school district, or first-lien mortgage loans on land located in Missouri.
What gets paid first out of the sale proceeds?
The costs and expenses of the action and sale, plus the commuted value of any estate that is commutable and that the owner has asked to have commuted.
Who receives the income after the sale proceeds are invested?
The owners of the life estate or estate for years continue to receive the income from the invested balance, in place of the rents and profits the land used to produce.
Is this the same procedure as an ordinary partition sale?
The sale itself follows the same manner as other sales of land not suited to division in kind, though this rule adds the specific rules about paying commuted value and investing the balance.