Chinn v. Chinn
1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 104, 19 Va. Cir. 430 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A co-tenant is only required to account to other co-tenants for rents and profits that are actually received from a third party's use of the common property; an accounting is not required for the property's fair market rental value if no monetary rent is collected.
Facts:
- Upon a life tenant's death in 1988, four siblings, including Ralph McCalley Chinn, became equal tenants in common of a residential property.
- The residence was vacant for over a year, during which time it began to deteriorate and was subject to vandalism.
- In May 1989, three of the co-tenants, without Chinn's consent, permitted their niece and her husband (the Schauls) to occupy the residence.
- The Schauls did not pay any cash rent; in exchange for their occupancy, they maintained, protected, and improved the deteriorating property.
- The parties stipulated that the reasonable monthly rental value of the property was $400.
Procedural Posture:
- The co-tenants initiated a partition suit in the Stafford County Circuit Court to divide or sell the property.
- A Commissioner in Chancery was appointed to oversee the matter.
- The Commissioner issued a ruling that Ralph McCalley Chinn was not entitled to an award for his share of the property's fair rental value.
- Chinn filed an exception to the Commissioner's Report, asking the Circuit Court to overturn the ruling.
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 co-tenant entitled to an accounting for his share of the property's fair rental value from other co-tenants who, without his consent, allowed a third party to occupy the property rent-free in exchange for maintenance and protection, when no actual rent or profit was received?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge James W. Haley, Jr.
No. A co-tenant is only required to account for 'receiving more than comes to his just share or proportion,' which means accounting either for the rental value of their own possession or for rents and profits actually received from a third party. The court, interpreting Virginia Code § 8.01-31, reasoned that the duty to account is triggered by what a co-tenant actually 'receives.' Citing precedents like Paxton v. Gamwell, the court emphasized that a co-tenant who places a third party in possession must only account for profits 'actually received.' In this case, the three co-tenants were never in physical possession of the property and, critically, they did not receive any rent or monetary profit from the Schauls. The consideration for the occupancy was maintenance and protection, not cash. Therefore, since no rents or profits were actually received, there was nothing for which the three co-tenants had to account to Chinn. The court also noted that the co-tenants' actions prevented waste, which benefited all owners.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a co-tenant's duty to account for rents and profits under Virginia law. It establishes a clear distinction between liability based on personal occupancy (which may trigger an obligation for fair rental value) and liability based on third-party occupancy, where the key is what was 'actually received.' The ruling provides co-tenants with a legal basis to arrange for non-monetary, in-kind compensation, such as property maintenance, without creating a financial liability to other co-tenants for theoretical rental income. This impacts how co-owners can manage vacant or deteriorating properties, encouraging protective measures over leaving a property empty to avoid accounting disputes.
