Opinion ID: 4521111
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fair Market Rental Value

Text: [¶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.