DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kanagaroo Kort
  HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Property
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 30--------------------------------------------------
       Spiller v. Mackereth
       By: SunsetSailor Date: January 27, 2011, 10:21 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FACTS:  Spiller (D) and Mackereth (P) were tenants in common of
       a warehouse.  When their tenant vacated, Spiller (D) began using
       the entire warehouse as a storage facility. Mackereth (P)
       demanded that he either vacate half of the premises or pay rent.
       He ignored the demand.  Mackereth (P) sued for rent.
       PROCEDURE:
       o Trial Court: Awarded Mackereth $2,100 in rent;
       Spiller appealed
       o Court of Appeals: Reversed
       ISSUE:  Is Spiller liable to Mackereth for rent?
       RULES:
       o Absent an owner physically barring a cotenant from
       entry upon the owned premises, that owner is not liable to the
       cotenant for rent (BRIEF)
       o General Rule:  In absence of an agreement to pay
       rent or an ouster of a cotenant, a cotenant in possession is not
       liable to his cotenants for the value of his use and occupation
       of the property (300-301)
       o Before an occupying cotenant can be liable for rent
       in Alabama, he must have denied his cotenants the right to
       enter.  It is axiomatic that there can be no denial of the right
       to enter unless there is a demand or an attempt to enter.
       Simply requesting the occupying cotenant to vacate is not
       sufficient because the occupying cotenant holds title to the
       whole and may rightfully occupy the whole unless the other
       cotenants assert their possessor rights (302)
       o RULE FROM NOTES & QUESTIONS: Unless there has been
       an ouster, the cotenant in possession does not have to pay a
       proportionate share of the rental value to the cotenants out of
       possession (302)
       ANALYSIS: As long as Spiller did not deny access to his
       cotenants, any activity of possession and occupancy of the
       building was consistent with his rights of ownership.  Thus, the
       fact that Spiller placed locks on the building, without evidence
       that he intended to exclude the other cotenants, is insufficient
       to establish his liability to pay rent.
       CONCLUSION: Reversed
       *****************************************************