Opinion ID: 2159829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Offset for Value of Exclusive Possession

Text: [¶ 13] Lufkin contends that the court should have reduced its credit to Palanza for repairs because she enjoyed the exclusive possession of the premises during the time when the repairs were made, and she enjoyed some rental income. Palanza contends that the court did not err in refusing to offset the rental value of the property because Lufkin failed to carry his burden to establish that value. She further contends that the court properly found that she did not realize any net rental income because she had to spend money for the eviction of difficult tenants. [¶ 14] A co-owner's exclusive use of jointly held property is a factor offsetting his expenditures on the property. Scheetz v. Hartman, 572 A.2d 140, 142 (Me.1990); Libby v. Lorrain, 430 A.2d 37, 40 (Me.1981) (affirming the court's equal division of the proceeds of a partition sale when one co-owner had exclusive possession and paid the mortgage, and the other paid for other household expenses, but lived elsewhere); see also Rinehart v. Schubel, 2002 ME 53, ¶ 11, 794 A.2d 73, 77 (holding that the court did not err in denying resident owner compensation for his expenditures on the property during his exclusive possession). The person seeking a set-off has the burden of establishing it. Weeks v. Standish Hardware & Garage Co., 145 Me. 307, 312, 75 A.2d 444, 447 (1950). We review the trial court's findings of fact for clear error and will uphold the findings unless there is no evidence to support them. Hartwell, 2002 ME 29, ¶ 10, 790 A.2d at 611 (internal quotation marks omitted). [¶ 15] The court did not commit clear error in finding that Palanza derived no net benefit from renting or occupying the property before or during the renovations. [5] More to the point, the house was unsafe and wasting, justifying Palanza's repairs. The court took into account that she had exclusive possession of the premises, but without evidence of the rental value of the property before the improvements, and without evidence that Palanza ousted Lufkin, the court could not find that Palanza owed Lufkin any quantifiable amount. See Christen v. Christen, 38 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Mo.Ct.App. 2001) (stating that [t]he rental value the out-of-possession tenant is entitled to is the reasonable rental value of the premises without the improvements made by the tenant in possession) (quoting Bass v. Rounds, 811 S.W.2d 775, 782 (Mo.App.1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted); 7 RICHARD R. POWELL, POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY § 50.07[6] (Michael Allan Wolf ed.2001) (stating that fair rental value of the entire tenancy in common is chargeable against the cotenant in possession if the cotenant has excluded the others). As a result, the court's award was not erroneous. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.