Spiller v. Mackereth
334 So. 2d 859 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cotenant in exclusive possession of commonly owned property is not liable to other cotenants for rent unless they deny the other cotenants the right to enter and occupy the property. A mere demand from an out-of-possession cotenant to either vacate the premises or pay rent is insufficient to establish the denial of entry, or ouster, required to create liability for rent.
Facts:
- John Robert Spiller and Hettie Mackereth were tenants in common, each owning a one-half undivided interest in a commercial lot and building in Tuscaloosa.
- Initially, the property was leased to a third-party business, Auto-Rite.
- In October 1973, Auto-Rite vacated the building.
- Following Auto-Rite's departure, Spiller began using the entire building as a warehouse for his own merchandise.
- After moving his merchandise in, Spiller placed new locks on the building's doors.
- On November 15, 1973, Mackereth's attorney sent a letter to Spiller demanding that he either vacate one-half of the building or begin paying rent.
- Spiller did not respond to the letter, did not vacate any part of the building, and did not pay any rent to Mackereth.
- Mackereth never attempted to enter the property, nor did she ever request keys to the new locks from Spiller.
Procedural Posture:
- John Robert Spiller filed a complaint against Hettie Mackereth in a trial court, seeking a sale for division of their co-owned property.
- Mackereth filed a counterclaim against Spiller, seeking payment of rent and alleging that his exclusive use of the building constituted an 'ouster'.
- By agreement, the trial court entered a decree ordering the sale of the property.
- A trial was held on Mackereth's counterclaim for rent.
- The trial court found that Spiller had ousted Mackereth and entered a judgment awarding her $2,100 in rent.
- Spiller, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment regarding the rental award to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
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 cotenant's sole occupancy of the entire commonly owned property, coupled with their failure to respond to another cotenant's demand to either vacate half of the property or pay rent, constitute an ouster that creates a liability for rent?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Jones
No, a cotenant's sole occupancy of commonly owned property does not create a liability for rent, even after a demand to vacate or pay rent, unless there is an ouster. The court held that to constitute an ouster for the purposes of rent liability, the occupying cotenant must deny the other cotenant's right of entry. The general rule is that a cotenant in possession is not liable to others for use and occupation absent an agreement or an ouster. The court distinguished ouster for adverse possession (which requires asserting absolute ownership) from ouster for rent liability (which requires refusing a demand for entry). Here, Mackereth's letter was merely a demand to vacate or pay rent, not a demand for equal use and enjoyment or an attempt to enter the premises. Adopting the majority rule, the court found such a demand insufficient to establish an ouster. The occupying cotenant may rightfully occupy the whole property unless and until another cotenant asserts their possessory rights by demanding entry. Since Mackereth never attempted or demanded to enter, Spiller never denied her entry. The presence of locks was also insufficient evidence of ouster, as Spiller was protecting his property and there was no evidence he would have refused Mackereth a key if she had asked. Therefore, no ouster occurred and Spiller is not liable for rent. The court did, however, affirm the award of attorney's fees to Mackereth's attorney, finding that his efforts to advertise the partition sale benefited the common estate.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the definition of 'ouster' as it applies to a cotenant's liability for rent, distinguishing it from the more stringent requirements for ouster in adverse possession claims. It establishes a clear, affirmative duty on the out-of-possession cotenant to demand actual entry and use of the property to trigger a rent liability. By aligning with the majority of jurisdictions, the ruling prevents passive, out-of-possession cotenants from simply demanding rent without asserting their own possessory rights. This precedent solidifies the principle that a cotenant's right to occupy the whole property is the default rule, which can only be altered by an actual denial of another cotenant's attempt to exercise that same right.
Unlock the full brief for Spiller v. Mackereth