Source: https://magellanlawfirm.com/tag/tenants-in-common/
Timestamp: 2019-02-16 05:00:09
Document Index: 30139817

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 154', '§ 63', '§ 154', '§ 66', '§ 69', '§ 171', '§ 171', '§ 69', '§ 171']

Tenants in Common Archives - Magellan Law, PLC
Tag: Tenants in Common
However, you may be able to establish an “ouster” even without a clear “express, open and unequivocal denial of the right to possession of the cotenant.” For example, the court in Morga found that an ouster had occurred based on the possessing co-tenant claiming “more than his due as a co-tenant.” Morga, 140 Ariz. 206, 208-209, 680 P.2d 1267, 1269-1270, 1984 Ariz. App. LEXIS 414. The Morga court based this on three facts that showed the possessing co-tenant “claimed more than his due as a co-tenant.” Morga, 140 Ariz. 206, 208-209, 680 P.2d 1267, 1269-1270, 1984 Ariz. App. LEXIS 414. First, that the possessing co-tenant “interfered with [the non-possessing tenant’s] right of entry.” Specifically, the possession co-tenant changed the locks with the intent of excluding the non-possessing tenant. Second, the possessing co-tenant removed the non-possessing tenant’s name from the office glass front. Third, the possessing co-tenant interfered with the non-possessing tenant’s right to sublease the common property to the extent of his interest.
In my personal experience, a court may find that an ouster occurred (and that rent is due to the non-possessing owner) if the person in possession (a) changed the locks and/or alarm code, and (b) there is some evidence that the possessing co-owner intended to exclude the non-possessing owner.
In other words, if you and your siblings inherit property, and your brother or sister moves into the house and doesn’t let you have equal use to the property, the sibling living in the house can be liable for rent for the time that he/she had use of the house.
The general rule is that the burden of paying the necessary expense of jointly owned property is the responsibility of all co-tenants. See 59A Am.Jur.2d Partition § 154 (2009); see also 20 Am.Jur.2d Cotenancy & Joint Ownership § 63 (2009. When one co-owner pays for an obligation owed equally by the other co-owner, he is entitled to recover from the other for his respective share. Brown v. Brown, 58 Ariz. 333, 336, 119 P.2d 938, 939 (1941); see also 59A Am.Jur.2d Partition § 154 (2009) (“When one cotenant pays more than his or her share, equity imposes on each cotenant the duty to contribute a proportionate share.”)
However, there is an exception to that general rule. A co-tenant’s right of contribution does not exist when the cotenant had exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. See 20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy & Joint Ownership § 66; see also In re Marriage of Maxfield, 47 Wn. App. 699, 737 P.2d 671, 676 (Wash. App. 1987). The right to compensation for improvements made on jointly owned property without the consent of the cotenants may be awarded when the improvements: “(1) are made in good faith; (2) are of necessary and substantial nature; (3) materially enhance the value of the property; and (4) are such that circumstances show it would be equitable to do so.” 20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy & Joint Ownership § 69; see also 59A Am. Jur. 2d Partition § 171 (courts may award a cotenant who makes improvements the resulting increase in value of the property, but not the cost of improvements).
Reimbursement for Improvements to the Property.
Generally, a co-tenant improving joint tenancy property with separate funds is entitled to reimbursement upon partition of the property. In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156, 161, 680 P.2d 1217, 1222; see also 59 Am.Jur.2d Partition § 171. The measure of the right to reimbursement for improvements is the resulting increase in value to the property, and not the actual costs of the improvements. Berger, 140 Ariz. at 163, 680 P.2d at 1224; Lawson v. Ridgeway, 72 Ariz. 253, 262, 233 P.2d 459,465 (1951).
The right to compensation for improvements made on jointly owned property without the consent of the cotenants may be awarded when the improvements: “(1) are made in good faith; (2) are of necessary and substantial nature; (3) materially enhance the value of the property; and (4) are such that circumstances show it would be equitable to do so.” 20 Am.Jur.2d Cotenancy & Joint Ownership § 69; see also 59A Am.Jur.2d Partition § 171 (courts may award a cotenant who makes improvements the resulting increase in value of the property, but not the cost of improvements).