Opinion ID: 2271977
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improvement Projects

Text: Lastly, we consider Johnston's argument that he should have received credits for expenditures he bore in completing three renovation projects at the property prior to its salea back stairway, certain landscaping of the back yard, and the study/library. The general rule is that [t]he right to compensation for improvements made without the consent of co-tenants is not a legal right[.] Hartog v. Siegler, 615 S.W.2d 632, 636 (Mo.Ct.App. 1981) (explaining, however, that even where a co-tenant did not consent, a court may require that such compensation be made out of partition proceeds when said improvements are made in good faith, are of a necessary and substantial nature, materially enhance the value of the property, and the circumstances show that it would be equitable to do so) (citation omitted); see also Shotwell v. Shotwell, 202 Va. 613, 119 S.E.2d 251, 255 (1961); In re Marriage of Marr, 264 Ill.App.3d 932, 202 Ill. Dec. 657, 638 N.E.2d 303, 305 (1994). The trial court declined to award Johnston credit for any of the projects. As to the back-stairway and landscaping projects, the court concluded that those home improvements were made exclusively by [Johnston], without consultation with [Hundley] and, thus, will not be paid back to Mr. Johnston. As to the library, the court pointed out that, although Hundley had agreed to the renovation, Johnston testified that he paid for the projects with money from the joint account, and, therefore, Hundley had paid the [cost] . . . of the library from already existing joint funds. In short, Mr. Hundley ha[d] already paid that money and any value of it was divided by the sale price of the house. The court's finding that Hundley did not agree to the landscaping and back-stairway projects is not supported by the record. At the hearing on April 6, 2007, Hundley's counsel told the court that the monies in the parties' joint account was intended for those three projects the library or English study, the back yard and the staircase. He added, If, Mr. Johnston, is standing here today saying I need to do the study, I need to do the backyard, I need to do the stairs. Our answer is yes. . . . Do them out of the [joint account] per court order. Johnston informed the court at the very same hearing that the three projects are all underway. At the January 29, 2008 hearing, there was another discussion about the projects. Johnston's counsel stated that I was not here . . . when those hearings were taking place, but there seems to have been made on the record . . . at least three major projects that everyone agreed had to be. . . done in order for . . . the property to be sold. He told the court that Mr. Johnston spent the money in reliance upon both the Court's directive and the representation of Mr. Hundley . . . Expressing skepticism that such an agreement had occurred at a prior hearing, the court asked counsel to [p]oint that out . . . in the transcript. Both counsel referenced the April 6 hearing, but the court preempted any answer by moving on to a discussion of costs. Hundley's counsel subsequently saidentirely contrary to his earlier representations to the courtthat he intend[ed] to put [Hundley] on the stand . . . because, Your Honor, . . . we didn't want those three projects done. The only one we wanted done was that there was an open contract for the study. . . . [19] Because Hundley's counsel represented in open court, before the renovation projects were completed, that Hundley agreed to all three projects and that the costs of the projects should be paid from the joint account, the court should not have acceded to his later position that he agreed to only one of the projects. See Porter Novelli, Inc. v. Bender, 817 A.2d 185, 188 (D.C.2003) (declaring that a litigant may not play fast and loose with a court of justice by changing his position according to the vicissitudes of self interest) (citations omitted). Thus, Johnston was entitled to a credit for the improvements if he provided sufficient evidence of their costs. However, we see in the record no evidence of the costs of the back-stairs project. Accordingly, we uphold the court's ruling denying Johnston any credit as to that project. To sustain his burden of proving the cost of the landscaping, Johnston submitted an email with an attachment that included the initial quotes for the work as well as a check evidencing the initial payment to the landscaper in the amount of $5,000. [20] On remand, the trial court should make a finding on the basis of this record evidence as to the cost incurred and proven for the landscaping project and afford Johnston a credit, for half that amount, against any sums he owes to Hundley. There was no dispute that Hundley agreed to the renovation of the library. The trial court's rationale for not affording Johnson a credit for expenditures for the library renovationthat Hundley already had paid his share of the project, in that Johnston used joint funds to pay for the projectsimply was incorrect, because the trial court ordered Johnston to pay back Hundley's share of the joint account in full, without any offset for Hundley's share of the library renovation costs. The court admitted into evidence a contract from Van-Walker Woodworking for the library project, a contract that the parties entered into before Hundley vacated the property. Pursuant to that contract, the parties jointly paid $17,655.65 on January 15, 2007. The trial court found that the balance owed under the contract after that date was $31,000. Yet, the invoice sent by Van-Walker on December 31, 2007, shows a balance (for items excluding those the trial court determined were not a part of the agreement between the parties) [21] of $33,454.90, not $31,000. On remand, the court should explain the discrepancy or correct its finding as to the balance of the agreed-upon cost for the library project. In addition, the trial court should subtract the (correct) balance, plus the amount that the court finds should be credited to Johnston for the back-yard landscaping project, from the amount that the court found Johnston liquidated from the joint account ($161,102), and award each party half of the remaining amount. That is the formula Hundley agreed to when his counsel told the trial court that the improvement projects should be paid for out of the money withdrawn from the joint account.