Von Drake v. Rogers
996 So.2d 608, 2008 WL 4491426, 2008 La. App. LEXIS 1302 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A co-owner in exclusive possession of a co-owned property becomes liable for rent to a non-occupying co-owner only from the date the non-occupying co-owner demands occupancy and is refused. The filing of a lawsuit seeking fair rental value can constitute such a demand.
Facts:
- Brothers Eric Von Drake and Edgar Rodgers co-owned a family home, with Eric holding a 1/3 interest and Edgar holding a 2/3 interest.
- Edgar and his family lived in the home, while Eric had last resided there in 1999 but kept personal belongings in a back room.
- After their mother's death in January 2002, Edgar changed the locks on the home and did not provide Eric with a new key.
- Edgar informed Eric that if he came to the house, he would have to be supervised and videotaped, a condition Eric refused.
- In July 2006, Eric attempted to create a separate entrance to the back room by cutting a large hole for a door in an exterior wall.
- Following this incident, Edgar refused Eric entry to the property, repaired the hole, and eventually tore down the back room.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric Von Drake filed suit against his brother, Edgar Rodgers, in the First Judicial District Court of Louisiana (a trial court).
- The petition sought fair rental value, alleging Edgar had improperly excluded Eric from their co-owned home.
- Eric's petition was later amended to add Edgar's wife, Angela, as a defendant.
- The trial court denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Eric.
- Following a trial on the merits, the court entered a judgment in favor of Edgar, denying all of Eric's claims.
- The trial court also denied Eric's subsequent motion for reconsideration or to reopen the case.
- Eric Von Drake (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit (an intermediate appellate court).
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-owner's filing of a lawsuit seeking fair rental value for the exclusive use of a property by another co-owner constitute a 'demand for occupancy' sufficient to trigger liability for rent?
Opinions:
Majority - Drew, J.
Yes. A co-owner's filing of a lawsuit for fair rental value constitutes a demand for occupancy, triggering the occupying co-owner's liability for rent from the date the suit was filed. Under Louisiana law (La. C.C. art. 802) and precedent such as McCarroll v. McCarroll, a co-owner is entitled to rent from another co-owner in exclusive possession, but only from the date occupancy is demanded and refused. The trial court erred by focusing on whether there was a demand for 'fair rental value' rather than the correct standard of a demand for 'occupancy.' Conducting a de novo review, the court found that Eric's prior actions, such as cutting a hole in the wall, were motivated by a desire to torment his brother rather than a genuine demand to occupy the premises. However, the filing of the lawsuit on September 22, 2006, served as a clear and formal demand for occupancy. Therefore, Edgar became liable to Eric for 1/3 of the home's fair rental value starting from that date.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal requirements for a non-occupying co-owner to claim rent from an occupying co-owner in Louisiana. It establishes that the formal act of filing a lawsuit for fair rental value can satisfy the 'demand for occupancy' requirement, providing a clear, date-certain trigger for liability. This is particularly significant in contentious family property disputes where prior communications may be ambiguous or disputed. The ruling prevents claims for retroactive rent based on informal or unclear past interactions and anchors the start of liability to a formal legal action.
