Opinion ID: 2071104
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Permissive Waste

Text: In addition, the Renieres argued that if Gerlach were declared vested with a life estate in the property, she has forfeited it by suffering permissive waste upon the property. In light of the facts of this case, we deem this contention to be without merit. Specifically, the Renieres contended that by her failure to pay real estate taxes, by failing to make necessary and reasonable repairs, and by abandoning the property, Gerlach has suffered permissive waste on the property, and therefore Helen, who holds the remainder interest, should be vested with exclusive right to the property. General Laws 1956 § 34-14-1 provides: Liability of tenant for life or years to reversioner or remainderman.  Every person seised of any real estate for the term of his or her own life, or for the life or lives of any other person or persons, or as a tenant for years, who commits or suffers any waste on such estate, shall forfeit his or her estate in the place so wasted and double the amount of the waste so done or suffered, to be recovered in an action of waste by the person entitled to the next estate in remainder or reversion in the place so wasted. In Chapman v. Cooney, 25 R.I. 657, 57 A. 928 (1904), this Court defined waste as the doing of those acts which cause lasting damage to the freehold or inheritance, or the neglect or omission to do those acts which are required to prevent lasting damage to the freehold or inheritance. Id. at 660, 57 A. at 929. This Court went on to state that the question as to whether [waste] has been committed in a given case is to be determined in view of the particular facts and circumstances appearing in that case. Id. Although almost a century has passed since the concept of waste was laid out in Chapman, we adhere to it today and conclude that the facts and circumstances of the case before us do not rise to the level of waste. There is no evidence that the property at 11 Ausdale Road has suffered lasting damage by Gerlach's inattention. First, the assertion that Gerlach's failure to pay taxes constitutes waste is without merit. Indeed, the taxes have been paid, but by the Renieres and not by Gerlach. We will not deem as waste Gerlach's failure to pay taxes where the failure to do so is predicated on the payment by another party, who gets to the tax collector first and then denies possession to the life tenant who has demanded same. Also, the record reveals that since Fiske's death, the Renieres have made repairs to the property during their occupancy. Therefore, by their own actions they have prevented the property from suffering any lasting damage. In addition, the argument that Gerlach abandoned the property is also without merit. Her attorney requested the Renieres to vacate and they refused to do so. Also, there has been no showing that the property has sustained any substantial or lasting damage. Finally, we are constrained to point out that the Renieres contention that Gerlach committed waste on the property cannot be reconciled with the fact that the Renieres have remained in possession of the property since Fiske's death and have enjoyed the benefits and comfort of 11 Ausdale Road while denying same to Gerlach.