## Facts

- Four siblings (the Chinns) inherited a parcel of land improved with a dilapidated, vacant house, and each sibling owned an equal undivided interest as a tenant in common.
- The siblings sought partition in the county circuit court so the property could be sold and the proceeds divided.
- Concerned that the vacant house would be damaged by vandals and would continue to deteriorate, three siblings agreed to let a couple, Mr. and Mrs. Schaul, live in the house.
- The Schauls were permitted to occupy the house rent-free, and in return they maintained the premises and helped protect the structure while the partition case proceeded.
- The fourth sibling, Ralph McCalley Chinn, did not consent to the Schauls’ rent-free occupancy arrangement.
- During the partition proceeding, the court-appointed partition commissioner prepared an accounting and denied Ralph’s request to charge the other co-tenants with a share of what the property might have earned as fair rental value on the open market.
- Ralph filed an exception to the commissioner’s report, placing the rental-value issue before the circuit court for review.

## Issues

1. In a partition accounting, may a tenant in common who did not consent to a rent-free occupancy arrangement recover a credit based on the property’s hypothetical fair rental value when other co-tenants permitted third parties to occupy in exchange for maintenance and protection?
2. Did the partition commissioner err by refusing to award Ralph a share of the property’s potential rental value in the accounting?

## Decision

- The circuit court considered Ralph’s exception to the partition commissioner’s report addressing the requested rental-value credit.
- The court declined to award Ralph an accounting credit for hypothetical market rent based solely on the rent-free occupancy arrangement.
- The court confirmed the commissioner’s treatment of the claim and left the accounting unchanged as to Ralph’s demand for imputed rent.

## Legal Principles

- In a partition suit, the court may require an accounting among co-tenants for appropriate charges and credits tied to the common property, including items connected to possession, use, and preservation.
- A co-tenant is generally accountable to other co-tenants for actual rents and profits received from third parties, but an accounting does not automatically include amounts that might have been earned as rent when no rent was charged or received.
- A claim for fair rental value in a co-tenancy context commonly turns on whether the claimant was excluded from possession (for example, by an ouster) or whether there was some agreement requiring payment; absent such a basis, a request for “imputed” rent may be denied.
- Reasonable steps taken to protect and maintain common property pending sale may be considered in evaluating whether a challenged possession arrangement should produce a charge in the accounting.

## Conclusion

Chinn v. Chinn arose from a partition among four siblings who owned inherited property as tenants in common, including a vacant, deteriorating house. Three siblings allowed a couple to live there rent-free in exchange for maintaining and safeguarding the structure, while the fourth sibling objected and sought a partition accounting credit for hypothetical fair rental value. The partition commissioner denied the claim, and the circuit court, on exception, refused to award imputed rent and confirmed the commissioner’s accounting treatment of the rent-free occupancy arrangement.


Chinn v. Chinn, 19 Va. Cir. 430, 1990 W.L. 751194 (1990)