1. Compensation for Mortgage Payments, Taxes, Insurance in a Partition Action
2. What if my Co-owner Lives in the Property and I Don’t? Will I get Compensation for the Value of the Property?
3. Ouster and Credit for the Rental Value of Your Property
4. Offset of Rental Value Against Claims Made by Co-Owner

A co-owner is generally entitled to compensation for mortgage payments, taxes and insurance. When property is owned as tenants in common, each co-owner is responsible for their proportionate share of the utilizes, mortgage, and property taxes. Joint tenants are each responsible for 50%

If a co-owner spends more than their proportionate share, they are entitled to reimbursement from the other co-owners.

However, recovery is subject to certain limitations. For example, the court may offset the use value of the property against the expenses claimed by one cotenant that is in exclusive possession. This means that if the cotenant seeking reimbursement had exclusive use of the property, the court may deduct the reasonable value of their occupancy from the amounts recoverable for expenses such as utilities, mortgage payments, and taxes.

Additionally, the expenditures must be shown to have been made in good faith and for the common benefit of all cotenants, as courts will not allow recovery for expenses that solely benefit the claimant or are inequitable under the circumstances.

A co-owner that is out of possession does not have the right to recover rent unless there has been an ouster or there is an agreement between the co-owners. However, where one co-owner, also known as a cotenant, is in exclusive possession, and claims reimbursement for amounts spent on items such as improvements, mortgage payments and taxes, the amounts claimed may be offset by the reasonable value of the cotenant’s occupancy or use, and in some cases may be offset by profits earned by the cotenant in possession.

An ouster is a legal term used that refers to one co-owner or tenant wrongfully excluding another from possession or use of jointly owned property. If a co-owner is ousted, they have a claim for monetary damages, including rental value and any other losses that can be proven to have stemmed from their dispossession. Ouster claims are often brought with partition actions which seek to force the sale of the property.

In order to prevail on an ouster claim, one must prove the denial of access to the property. In Zaslow v. Kroenert, 29 Cal. 2d 541 (Cal.1946) “The court … clarified that ouster must be proven by acts of an adverse character, such as claiming the entire property for oneself, denying title of the other cotenant, or refusing to allow the other cotenant to enter the property.”

California Civil Code Section 843 also provides a statutory mechanism to establish ouster. If the tenant currently in possession of the property fails to provide unconditional concurrent possession within 60 days after receiving a written demand, an ouster is deemed to have occurred.

Hunter v. Schultz confirmed that, unless there is an agreement between co-owners, one co-owner does not have the right to recover rent from the other co-owner who is in exclusive possession. However, where one co-owner, also known as a cotenant, is in exclusive possession, and claims reimbursement for amounts spent on items such as improvements, mortgage payments and taxes, the amounts claimed may be offset by the reasonable value of the cotenant’s occupancy or use, and in some cases may be offset by profits earned by the cotenant in possession.

“[If] a cotenant who has been in possession or use of the premises seeks to obtain contribution [through a partition action] respecting improvements made, or amounts expended in protection or preservation of the property, the court, as incidental to the granting of such relief and by way of adjusting the rights of the parties, may charge the claimant, defensively, with at least part of the reasonable value of his occupancy or use. ..even though he could not otherwise be required to account or be held liable respecting any such benefits.” Hunter v. Schultz (1966) 240 Cal. App. 2d 24, 31 (citation and internal quotations omitted).

See more:

  Attorney’s Fees and Costs in Partition Lawsuits – Accounting, and Adjustments to Proceeds Based on Equitable Considerations (Payments for Utilities, Mortgage, Improvements)

   What is a Partition Referee?

   Accounting Inherent in a Partition Case

As seen in

ANAND LAW is composed of attorneys, accountants, and real estate brokers.  We act as a court appointed Partition Referee throughout California, from San Diego to Sacramento, and beyond–including in the cities and areas of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Arcadia, Burbank, La Canada Flintridge, Covina, West Covina, Downey, Santa Monica, Glendale, Eagle Rock, Hollywood, Atwater Village, Echo Park, Glassell Park, Loz Feliz, Silverlake, Highland Park, Boyle Heights, Hancock Park, Cheviot Hills, Koreatown, Miracle Mile, Mid City, Venice, Van Nuys, Encino, Studio City, Sherman Oaks, Panorama City, North Hills, West Hills, Thousand Oaks, Calabasas, Granada Hills, Long Beach, Glendora, Anaheim, Inglewood, Santa Ana, Beverly Hills, Pomona, Marina Del Rey, Playa Del Rey, Mar Vista, Culver City, Cheviot Hills, Holmby Hills, Westchester, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Huntington Beach, Orange, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Moorpark, Fresno, Stockton, San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Petaluma, Marin, Sausalito, Mill Valley, Tiburon, Daly City, Fremont, Stinson Beach, Redwood City, Berkeley, San Leandro, Napa, Santa Rosa, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Laguna Beach, Laguna Nigel, San Clemente, Ladera Ranch, Tustin, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Coto De Caza, Rancho Santa Margarita, Laguna Hills, Corona Del Mar, Carlsbad, La Jolla, Encinitas, Vista, Del Mar, Chula Vista, and communities throughout Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, San Diego, Ventura, San Francisco, Alameda, and Mendocino Counties.

The information on this site is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information contained is not intended to be a complete recitation of the law, and is provided only as general information in an area—it may not contain all nuances of the law, and is not guaranteed to be correct or complete.  ANAND LAW PC (“ALPC”) expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on the information contained on our site.

We invite you to contact us for more information by calling (888) 323-0606, or submitting our contact form here. However, contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until an attorney-client relationship has been established by a signed legal services agreement. Unless and until you and ALPC formally establish an attorney-client relationship, ALPC does not represent you in any manner, and has no duty to you.  Further, any email or other correspondence sent prior to a formal relationship being established, and without request from ALPC, will not be privileged or confidential, and subject to disclosure to other parties. Please review our complete Terms of Use.