Graham v. Inlow
1990 Ark. LEXIS 296, 302 Ark. 414, 790 S.W. 2d 428 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a partition action, a cotenant who makes good faith improvements to a property is entitled to compensation measured by the enhancement in the value of the entire property, not the cost of the improvements. A cotenant in possession is not liable to other cotenants for rent unless they have been ousted or excluded from the property.
Facts:
- Robert Inlow conveyed a 287-acre farm to his second wife, Freda Inlow, and his three children, Patricia Graham, Charles Inlow, and Carol Inlow, making them tenants in common with equal one-fourth shares.
- Patricia Graham was Robert's child from his first marriage, making her Freda's stepdaughter.
- Beginning in 1979, Freda Inlow made various improvements to the farm, primarily consisting of repairs and renovations to existing buildings like barns.
- Patricia Graham lived on a portion of the farm property.
- Freda Inlow and her two children occupied and used the farm.
- A strained relationship, described as "bad blood," existed between Patricia Graham and her stepmother, Freda.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Graham filed a partition suit against Freda Inlow, Charles Inlow, and Carol Inlow in the Arkansas chancery court (trial court).
- The case was previously appealed, resulting in a decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that upheld the deed creating the cotenancy and remanded the case to the trial court.
- On remand, the chancellor found the property could not be partitioned in kind and ordered its sale.
- The chancellor awarded Freda Inlow $70,000 as reimbursement for improvements she made to the property.
- The chancellor awarded Patricia Graham rental income, but only from the date she commenced the partition suit, and also awarded her attorney's fees.
- Patricia Graham (appellant) appealed the chancellor's award for improvements and the ruling limiting her recovery of rent.
- Freda Inlow and her children (appellees) filed a cross-appeal, challenging the award of any rent and the award of attorney's fees to Graham.
- The case is now before the Arkansas Supreme Court on its second appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a partition action, is a cotenant who made improvements to the property entitled to compensation measured by the amount the improvements enhanced the total value of the property, rather than their cost, and must they provide specific evidence of this total enhancement value?
Opinions:
Majority - Tom Glaze, Justice
Yes. In a partition action, a cotenant who made good faith improvements is entitled to compensation limited to the enhancement value of the improvement to the property as a whole. The proper measure of recovery is the difference between the value of the land without the improvements and the value of the land with the improvements in their then-current condition. Here, Freda Inlow's appraiser testified about the contributory value of individual improved items (like a barn) but failed to provide testimony on how these improvements enhanced the value of the entire 287-acre farm. Because the evidence did not support the proper measure of recovery, the chancellor's award of $70,000 was erroneous. The court affirmed the chancellor's ruling on rent, holding that a cotenant in possession is not liable for rent to other cotenants until they are ousted or excluded, which Graham did not prove occurred until she filed her partition suit.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the specific evidentiary standard required for a cotenant to recover for improvements in a partition suit. It solidifies the distinction between the cost of improvements and the 'enhancement value' to the entire property, preventing a cotenant from being 'improved out of their property' by expensive, unconsented-to changes. The ruling provides a clear roadmap for practitioners on how to prove such claims, requiring specific appraisal testimony comparing the property's overall value with and without the improvements. This case reinforces the fundamental property law principle that a cotenant's possession is not adverse to other cotenants until a clear ouster occurs.
