Barrow v. Barrow
1988 WL 68497, 527 So.2d 1373 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cotenant in exclusive possession of real property is not liable to a non-possessing cotenant for rent unless there has been an ouster. However, if the cotenant in possession seeks contribution for property preservation expenses, the non-possessing cotenant may offset that claim with the reasonable rental value of the property.
Facts:
- James Barrow owned and built a residence on his property prior to his marriage to Donna Barrow.
- The property served as the couple's marital residence for ten years.
- In their divorce, a final judgment awarded Donna Barrow an undivided one-half interest in the property as alimony, making them tenants in common.
- The divorce judgment made no provision regarding possession or disposition of the property.
- Immediately after the separation, Donna Barrow moved to Idaho.
- James Barrow remained in sole possession of the former marital home, changed the locks, obtained a new telephone number, and did not respond to Donna's letters.
- James Barrow paid for all taxes, insurance, and other services necessary to maintain the property.
- Donna Barrow made no demand for rent or possession prior to initiating the lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna Barrow filed a complaint in a Florida trial court seeking partition of the former marital home.
- James Barrow counterclaimed, seeking contribution for one-half of the expenses he paid for taxes, insurance, and maintenance.
- Donna Barrow responded to the counterclaim by seeking one-half of the home's fair rental value for the period of James's sole occupancy.
- The trial court, following existing precedent from the Second District Court of Appeal, awarded Donna Barrow rental value as an independent claim and awarded James Barrow reimbursement for expenses.
- James Barrow, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court, but acknowledged its decision was in conflict with a ruling from another Florida appellate district.
- The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction to resolve the conflict between the district courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a former spouse in exclusive possession of a former marital home, now held as a tenancy in common, liable for rent to the non-possessing former spouse-cotenant absent an ouster, and if the possessing cotenant seeks contribution for property expenses, may the non-possessing cotenant offset that claim with the property's reasonable rental value?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Overton
No, a former spouse in exclusive possession is not liable for rent absent an ouster, but yes, a claim for rental value may be asserted as an offset. The general rule is that a cotenant in possession is not liable to a cotenant out of possession unless there is an ouster or its equivalent, which requires the possessing cotenant to communicate to the other a claim of exclusive right or title. The court rejected the lower court's reasoning that the inherent hostility between former spouses automatically constitutes an ouster, holding that the same property law rules must apply to all cotenants. However, the court recognized a long-standing equitable exception: when a cotenant in possession seeks contribution for expenses incurred in preserving the property (e.g., taxes, insurance), the non-possessing cotenant is entitled to offset that claim with the reasonable rental value of the property for the period of exclusive occupancy. Therefore, Donna Barrow's claim for rent fails as an independent cause of action but is valid as an offset against James Barrow's claim for contribution, limited to the amount of his claim.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms traditional common law principles of co-tenancy and rejects the creation of a special exception for former spouses. By refusing to presume ouster from the mere fact of a divorce, the court promotes uniformity and predictability in property law. The significance of the case lies in its clarification of the equitable offset rule, which prevents a cotenant in possession from being unjustly enriched by receiving both exclusive use of the property and financial contribution for its upkeep from the non-possessing cotenant. This balances the equities between the parties in partition actions without disrupting established doctrines like adverse possession.
