## Facts

- Former spouses jointly owned an office building used by the husband as his medical office.
- The parties divorced in 1963 and thereafter held the building as tenants in common; the divorce decree made no provision for use or possession of the building.
- After the divorce, the husband remained in exclusive possession, paid taxes, made necessary repairs, and exercised control; he did not collect rents or profits from third parties.
- In 1967, the wife filed a partition action seeking sale/partition of the office building and an accounting for one-half of its rental value dating back to the divorce.
- The husband counterclaimed for partition of the wife’s residence, which was held as tenants in common but was awarded to the wife for exclusive possession under the divorce decree.
- The trial court ordered partition sale of the office building, awarded the wife an accounting for one-half rental value from the divorce date, and denied the husband’s counterclaim.
- The district court affirmed the accounting award and the dismissal of the counterclaim.
- The husband sought certiorari review in the Florida Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should review the dismissal of the husband’s counterclaim regarding the wife’s residence.
2. Whether a cotenant in exclusive possession who uses the property for personal benefit, without receiving third-party rents or profits, must account to the out-of-possession cotenant for rental value absent ouster, adverse holding, or equivalent conduct.

## Decision

- The court declined to exercise jurisdiction to review the dismissal of the husband’s counterclaim concerning the wife’s residence.
- The court quashed the decision affirming an accounting for rental value of the office building and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The court held the record did not establish ouster or adverse holding by the husband sufficient to impose liability for rental value.

## Legal Principles

- A cotenant in exclusive possession who uses the property for personal benefit and does not receive rents or profits is not liable to an out-of-possession cotenant for rent or rental-value accounting absent ouster, adverse holding, or the equivalent.
- Possession by one tenant in common is presumed to be possession for all cotenants unless an adverse claim is clearly communicated to the other cotenant(s).
- A cotenant’s subjective belief of sole ownership, without notice or unequivocal acts communicated to the other cotenant, does not constitute ouster or adverse holding.

## Conclusion

The court rejected an automatic rental-value accounting based solely on one cotenant’s exclusive post-divorce use of commonly owned property, requiring proof of communicated ouster or adverse holding before imposing financial liability to the out-of-possession cotenant.


Coggan v. Coggan, 239 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1970)