When parties claim the same share adversely, the court may determine the adverse claims or direct that the share be allotted, subject to the adverse claims.
Rule 96.10.When Parties Claim Adversely--How Court Shall Proceed.
Part III · Rule 96: Partition of Real and Personal Property · Last amended January 1, 1981 · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceRule 96.10 lets the court, when parties adversely claim the same share, either resolve the adverse claims itself or allot the share subject to those claims for later resolution.
Full Text of Rule 96.10
Amendment History
Adopted June 5, 1980, eff. Jan. 1, 1981.
Official Comment
This is substantially the same as prior Rule 96.19.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 96.10 handles a wrinkle that can arise in partition cases: sometimes two or more parties both claim ownership of the same share, not as co-owners splitting it, but as rivals each asserting the whole interest against the other. This is different from an ordinary partition dispute over how much each owner is entitled to; it is a dispute over who owns the share at all.
Instead of requiring the entire partition case to grind to a halt until that ownership fight is resolved elsewhere, the rule gives the court two options. The court may decide the adverse claims itself, as part of the partition proceeding, resolving who owns the disputed share. Or, if it prefers, the court may direct that the share be allotted anyway — physically set aside or accounted for in the division — while leaving it subject to the adverse claims, to be sorted out separately.
This flexibility keeps the overall partition moving forward even when a slice of the ownership picture remains contested. The land or proceeds tied to the disputed share do not have to hold up division of the rest of the property, since the court can carve out that share and let the adverse-claim dispute proceed on its own track.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean for parties to claim a share adversely under Rule 96.10?
It means two or more parties each assert ownership of the same share as rivals, instead of agreeing on how to split it between them.
What are the court's options when this happens?
The court may determine the adverse claims itself, or it may direct that the share be allotted subject to the adverse claims, leaving the ownership question for later resolution.
Does an adverse claim over one share stop the rest of the partition case?
No, the rule lets the court proceed with allotting the disputed share subject to the claims, so the rest of the case is not held hostage to that one dispute.
Who decides which of the two approaches to use?
The court decides, based on the circumstances of the case, whether to resolve the adverse claims directly or allot the share subject to them.
How does this rule interact with the proceeds-related rules later in the chapter?
Rule 96.28 similarly allows funds from the sale of a share with adverse claims to be held subject to the court's order, mirroring the approach this rule sets for shares in kind.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Missouri State & Federal Court Rules, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Missouri. Last verified July 22, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: adverse claims partition sharecompeting ownership claims partitiondisputed share allotmentrival ownership partition suit