Estate of Hughes
5 Cal. App. 4th 1607, 7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 742 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A co-tenant in possession of a property effectuates an ouster of their co-tenants by filing a legal action in which they claim sole ownership and deny any title or interest to the other co-tenants.
Facts:
- Kathryn Marlow Hughes and her husband, George Ervin Hughes, lived in a residence that was Kathryn's separate property.
- Kathryn died on February 12, 1975, with a will that omitted George but named her two children, Victoria Wiseman and Charles Marlow, as beneficiaries.
- As an omitted spouse under probate law, George acquired a one-third interest in the property, while Kathryn's children acquired the remaining two-thirds, making them all co-tenants.
- George continued to live in the residence after Kathryn's death, later with his new wife Sylvia, and paid the mortgage but did not pay rent to the other co-tenants.
- On September 15, 1982, George filed a community property petition, followed by another petition on November 19, 1982, asserting that the residence was entirely his community property and that Kathryn's children had no interest in it.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Kathryn Hughes's death, her will was admitted to probate in the probate court.
- Danice Diemoz was appointed special administratrix of Kathryn's estate.
- George Hughes filed petitions in probate court asserting he was the sole owner of the residence.
- A court-appointed referee investigated the issue of rent liability and concluded that George's actions did not constitute an ouster and no rent was due.
- The probate court adopted the referee's findings, approved the final account of the former administratrix, and ruled that neither George's estate nor his wife Sylvia were liable for rent.
- Ben G. Patton, the successor administrator of Kathryn Hughes's estate, appealed the probate court's order to the Court of Appeals of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a co-tenant's conduct of filing legal petitions claiming 100 percent ownership of a jointly-owned property constitute an ouster, thereby creating an obligation to pay rent to the co-tenants out of possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiener, Acting P.J.
Yes, filing legal petitions asserting sole ownership of a property constitutes an ouster. While a co-tenant is generally not liable for rent to co-tenants out of possession absent an ouster, an ouster is more than just physical exclusion. An ouster is the wrongful dispossession or exclusion of a co-tenant, which can be demonstrated by acts of an adverse character. The court held that George's petitions, which categorically alleged he was the sole owner and that Kathryn's children had no interest, were the functional equivalent of changing the locks or posting 'no trespassing' signs. Citing Zaslow v. Kroenert, the court explained that an ouster is proven by acts such as 'claiming the whole for himself, denying the title of his companion.' Therefore, the filing of the petitions was an unambiguous act of exclusion that triggered George's obligation to pay rent from that date forward.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the legal definition of 'ouster' within co-tenancy law, extending it beyond physical acts of exclusion to include legal claims. It establishes that a formal assertion of sole ownership in a judicial proceeding is sufficient to constitute an ouster. This provides a clear, documented event from which a co-tenant's liability for rent can be calculated, and also marks the point at which the statute of limitations for an adverse possession claim would begin to run. The decision discourages co-tenants in possession from using the court system to challenge their co-tenants' titles without being prepared to accept the financial consequences, such as rent liability, if their claim is unsuccessful.
