## Facts

- Florence Gillmor, Edward Leslie Gillmor, and C. Frank Gillmor owned about 33,000 acres of Utah ranch land as tenants in common.
- Edward continued operating the ranching enterprise, grazing cattle and sheep and using the land to produce feed.
- Florence sought to graze her own livestock and demanded access and adjustments so she could make concurrent use.
- Edward maintained use at what he claimed was the land’s maximum grazing capacity, did not alter his practices, and stated he would seek to enjoin Florence if additional grazing would overuse the range.
- In a bifurcated accounting/damages trial, the court first awarded Florence $21,544.91 for an earlier period (not appealed).
- For June 1, 1980 to December 31, 1980, the trial court found Edward’s grazing and feed production were “to the exclusion” of Florence and awarded her $29,760 as one-half the rental value.

## Issues

1. Whether Edward’s continued maximum-capacity grazing and refusal to accommodate Florence after her demand for access constituted an ouster making him liable for her share of rents and profits.
2. Whether the Phase II damages award was excessive and whether Edward was entitled to offsets for expenditures such as repairs or improvements.

## Decision

- The court held the evidence supported a finding of ouster because Florence made a clear demand for concurrent use and Edward’s conduct effectively prevented any meaningful shared use.
- The court approved using Florence’s one-half share of the fair rental value tied to grazing capacity (including value derived from feed/hay usage) as the general measure of damages.
- The court required modification of the amount to allow proper credits for necessary expenditures borne by Edward that were chargeable to the common estate.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to adjust the judgment for allowable offsets.

## Legal Principles

- A cotenant may recover a share of rents and profits from common property upon proof that the cotenant was ousted from possession.
- Ouster between cotenants can be shown by a clear demand for access and a refusal or conduct that makes concurrent possession impracticable; physical expulsion is not required.
- Damages for ouster may be measured by the ousted cotenant’s proportionate share of the reasonable rental value of the property’s productive use.
- In an accounting between cotenants, the cotenant in possession may be entitled to credits for necessary repairs or similar expenditures benefiting the common property, if properly proven and attributable.

## Conclusion

The court treated a demand-and-refusal pattern—combined with maximum-capacity use that foreclosed shared possession—as an effective ouster, upheld rental-value recovery for the excluded cotenant, and remanded to reduce the award by any proven, allowable credits for necessary common-property expenses.


Gillmor v. Gillmor, 694 P.2d 1037 (Utah 1984)