Opinion ID: 4521111
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disallowance of Claimed Credits and Set-Off

Text: [¶11] Strand next contends that the court clearly erred in concluding that (1) his claim to have invested 300 hours of labor in repairs and improvements to the home was not supported by sufficient evidence, and (2) Velandry’s share would not be reduced by the value of her exclusive possession of the property because Strand failed to prove the home’s fair market rental value. Concerning Velandry’s claimed expenditures for necessary repairs, the court, although recognizing that “repairs were done to halt the home’s unsafe and wasting condition,” found that it “simply [could not] determine . . . [the] time and expenses [that] were spent on such repairs.” As a result, beyond Strand’s credit stipulated to by the parties, the court declined to award either party additional 7 credit or assess a set-off against Velandry to increase or reduce either party’s share of the property.3
[¶12] Contrary to Strand’s contention that the court should have awarded him a greater share based on the value of his labor, on this record the court’s factual finding that he “could only provide the court with general and sometimes vague estimates of the time he spent making repairs and improvements” is not clearly erroneous. See Plourde, 2019 ME 109, ¶ 8, 211 A.3d 1153; Bradford, 675 A.2d at 961 (“The court’s findings as to the value of each parties’ contributions are findings of fact.”).
[¶13] Velandry had exclusive possession of the home after Strand moved out in June 2017. It is a “well-established proposition that an out-of-possession tenant must prove the reasonable rental value of the property to successfully claim compensation for a co-tenant’s occupancy.” Wicks v. Conroy, 2013 ME 84, ¶ 18, 77 A.3d 479. 3 Strand also contends that the court erred in denying his motion to find that a mortgage for which Strand was responsible encumbered the property. We discern no clear error in the court’s finding that “there is no proof of a mortgage or any of its terms” and do not discuss this issue further. See Doe v. Plourde, 2019 ME 109, ¶ 8, 211 A.3d 1153. 8 [¶14] Strand testified, based on his Zillow search of comparable residences in Kittery, that a fair rental value of the property was $2,200 per month. He contends that the court clearly erred in finding that he “failed to meet [his] burden [of proving fair rental value] as the rental prices he stated were for homes in good repair.” We disagree. The court’s finding was justified given its acceptance of Velandry’s detailed testimony concerning the home’s poor condition. Further, when asked if the house could be rented in its current condition, Velandry said, “No, absolutely not.” See Wicks, 2013 ME 84, ¶ 15, 77 A.3d 479 (stating that property owners may give their opinion as to the fair market value of their property and that the owner’s opinion is a sufficient basis for the court’s determination of that issue). Absent sufficient evidence concerning the property’s fair market rental value in its present condition, the court did not err in finding that Velandry derived no net benefit from occupying the property.