Diedricks v. Reinhardt, 84-1966
Decision Date | 19 March 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84-1966,84-1966 |
Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 756,466 So.2d 375 |
Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 756, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 872 Catherine DIEDRICKS, Appellant, v. Arlene REINHARDT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William Reinhardt, a/k/a William D. Reinhardt, Deceased, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael Lechtman, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Gregory B. Hoppenstand, Bay Harbor Island, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Catherine Diedricks, the appellant, was the long-time apparent, but not lawful, wife of William Reinhardt until his death on May 15, 1978. At the time of William's death, Catherine was living with him in a home which they jointly owned; after William's death, Catherine continued to live in this home by herself. Arlene Reinhardt, as her name suggests, was William's estranged, but lawful, wife, who after William's death became the duly-appointed personal representative of his estate. This case, as the reader may have already guessed, concerns Arlene's claim (as an heir to her husband's estate) to his interest in the home he jointly owned with Catherine--more specifically, her claim to one-half the reasonable rental value of the home.
The issues on appeal are whether the record contains sufficient evidence of Catherine's possession of the home adverse to Arlene's interest so as to warrant an accounting for and payment of rent to Arlene, the co-tenant; and whether, as the trial court concluded, such adversity can be shown by the mere fact of William's death so as to make Catherine responsible to pay Arlene one-half the reasonable rental value of the home from May 15, 1978, forward.
The rule of law applicable here is that a co-tenant, as Catherine, in exclusive possession of real property which she uses for her own benefit and from which she does not receive rent, is not accountable or liable to her co-tenant out of possession, here Arlene, unless the co-tenant out of possession can show that the co-tenant in exclusive possession holds adversely or as a result of ouster or its equivalent. 1 Coggan v. Coggan, 239 So.2d 17 (Fla.1970). In Coggan, the ex-wife filed suit for partition of an office building owned by the parties as tenants in common, but occupied solely by her ex-husband. Mrs. Coggan also sought an accounting of one-half the rental value of the property from the time of the parties' divorce. The supreme court, in quashing the district court of appeal decision and reversing the trial court's order directing an accounting, found that there was no evidence in the record to indicate that Mr. Coggan was claiming adversely to his ex-wife or was preparing to oust her and, moreover, that the ex-husband's general denial of the existence of a co-tenancy, appearing for the first time in his answer to the complaint for partition, could not be considered evidence that he was occupying the property adversely to the ex-wife. See Patterson v. Patterson, 396 So.2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Seesholts v. Beers, 270 So.2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). But see Potter v. Garrett, 52 So.2d 115 (Fla.1951) 2; Finn v. Finn, 464 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Adkins v. Edwards, 317 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) ( ). The event of William's death, through which Arlene merely obtained her nonadverse interest in the property, 3 like the mere fact of divorce, does not demonstrate the required adversity.
Nor is a complaint for partition, being not inconsistent with the common possession by the co-tenants, an action adverse to either co-tenant's right of possession. The goal of an action for partition, unlike the goal of an action for ejectment, is to avoid the problems arising from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 88-2541
...that sole possession of former marital property by one cotenant does not necessarily constitute an ouster. In Diedricks v. Reinhardt, 466 So.2d 375, 377 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), which was not discussed in Barrow, the court held that to demonstrate ouster, one must show acts of possession in......
-
Diaz v. Security Union Title Ins. Co., 94-106
...Morrison v. Byrd, 72 So.2d 657, 658 (Fla.1954); Futch v. Parslow, 64 Fla. 279, 60 So. 343, 344 (Fla.1912). In Diedricks v. Reinhardt, 466 So.2d 375, 377-78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), a non-possessing cotenant sued to recover title to the entire property, thereby notifying the possessing cotenant o......
-
Vandergrift v. Buckley, 84-558
...evidence presented in each case will determine if an actual or constructive ouster has occurred.3 The recent case of Diedricks v. Reinhardt, 466 So.2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) appears to recede from Finn or at least, reaches an opposite result. Diedricks became a tenant in common of the resid......
-
Clarke v. Young
...NESBITT, JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Barrow v. Barrow, 527 So.2d 1373, 1377 (Fla.1988); Diedricks v. Reinhardt, 466 So.2d 375, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). ...