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

Heading: Credit for the Cost of Repairs

Text: [¶ 8] Lufkin contends that the court should have credited Palanza with the increase in the value of the property, not the full cost of the improvements she made. Palanza contends that she made repairs, not improvements, to the house and that the law entitles her to recover for the reasonable cost of necessary repairs beyond her proportionate share. [3] [¶ 9] 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 v. Stanley, 2002 ME 29, ¶ 10, 790 A.2d 607, 611 (quoting Charlton v. Town of Oxford, 2001 ME 104 ¶ 28, 774 A.2d 366) (internal quotation marks omitted). [¶ 10] Our common law regarding equitable partition actions provides some guidance regarding the distinction between necessary repairs and elective improvements. We held that a co-owner who erected a house while in the exclusive possession of that portion of the parties' property was entitled to the benefit of [the improvements'] value to the estate. Reed v. Reed, 68 Me. 568, 571 (1878). [4] By comparison, we held that the cost of repairs could be charged against the property (i.e., recovered, dollar for dollar, from the proceeds) when a mortgagee who took possession of the premises properly made necessary repairs and improvements to prevent the property from waste. Miller v. Ward, 111 Me. 134, 138, 88 A. 400, 402 (1913). [¶ 11] Regarding the cost of maintaining property, [t]he general principle is that when one cotenant pays more than his share of taxes, mortgage payments, and other necessary expenses, equity imposes on each cotenant the duty to contribute his proportionate share. 59A AM.JUR. 2D Partition § 226 (1987); see, e.g., Biondo v. Powers, 743 So.2d 161, 164 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1999) (stating that a cotenant is entitled to a credit from the proceeds of a partition sale for his cotenant's share of the obligations or expenses of the property, consisting of mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, and necessary repairs). By contrast, when a cotenant makes improvements to the property, courts generally award that cotenant the resulting increase in the value of the estate, and not the actual cost of the improvements. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Hernandez, 645 So.2d 171, 175 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (stating that a tenant who makes an improvement to property is entitled to the additional amount which the property brings because of the improvement upon a partition sale). [¶ 12] Although some of the work done on the property had a cosmetic element, the court did not commit clear error in finding that the repairs and renovations were necessary. The court expressly excepted certain expenses as unproven or unnecessary, and arrived at a figure that represented only the established necessary expenses. That the premises were insured when Palanza undertook the repairs does not establish the future insurability of the premises if not maintained. To the extent that any finish work was involved in completing repairs to damaged areas, the court did not commit clear error because each necessary repair also included the finish work that completed the repair. Lufkin does not challenge the court's findings regarding other specific repairs.