## Facts

- Esther Buckley conveyed real property to her son, George Hausmann, as a life tenant, with the remainder in fee to her grandson, Charles Hausmann.
- George failed to pay the 1986 real estate taxes when due in 1987, causing the property to become subject to a tax sale.
- George’s stepson purchased the property at the tax sale, and the purchase was found to have been prearranged with George.
- In January 1988, Charles redeemed the property by paying the delinquent taxes and related amounts to prevent loss of the property.
- In February 1988, Charles sued George for waste, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, and an injunction requiring George to pay the 1987 taxes and future real estate taxes.
- The trial court declined to issue an injunction, and George did not pay the 1987 taxes.
- When the property again became subject to sale for delinquent taxes, Charles submitted the highest bid at that sale.
- George counterclaimed, alleging Charles owed him $5,000 on an unwritten loan and additional amounts for rental and storage of personal property on the land.
- After a bench trial, the court found George liable for waste and awarded Charles actual damages and punitive damages; it denied injunctive relief; it awarded George $5,000 on the loan claim and denied George’s rental and storage claim.
- George appealed the waste and punitive damages awards (arguing Charles was a volunteer and punitive damages were improper). Charles cross-appealed the denial of an injunction and challenged the $5,000 loan award.

## Issues

1. Whether a life tenant’s failure to pay real estate taxes, exposing the property to tax sale and threatening the remainderman’s interest, constitutes actionable waste.
2. Whether Charles’s payment to redeem the property barred recovery because he was a “volunteer.”
3. Whether the evidence supported an award of punitive damages based on George’s conduct surrounding the tax delinquency and tax sale.
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying a mandatory injunction compelling George to pay current and future real estate taxes.
5. Whether the finding that Charles owed George $5,000 on an unwritten loan was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment in all respects.
- It held that a life tenant has a duty to pay real estate taxes and that allowing the property to go to tax sale, thereby endangering the remainder, can constitute waste supporting damages.
- It rejected the volunteer argument, concluding Charles redeemed to protect his own remainder interest and could seek recovery from the life tenant whose default created the risk.
- It upheld punitive damages, finding the record supported a finding of willful or intentional misconduct, including evidence that the tax-sale purchase by George’s stepson was arranged with George.
- It affirmed the denial of injunctive relief, concluding the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that damages provided an adequate remedy under the circumstances.
- It affirmed the $5,000 loan award, deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations and concluding the finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A life tenant is primarily responsible for paying ordinary real estate taxes that accrue during the life tenancy.
- Waste is not limited to physical damage; conduct that materially threatens or impairs the value or security of a future interest, including exposing property to tax sale, may constitute waste.
- A remainderman who redeems property from a tax sale to protect a vested future interest is not a mere volunteer and may recover appropriate damages from the life tenant whose breach caused the redemption.
- Punitive damages may be awarded in waste-related actions when the defendant’s conduct is willful, intentional, or shows reckless disregard for another’s property rights.
- A mandatory injunction is an equitable remedy committed to the trial court’s discretion and may be denied when monetary damages are an adequate remedy.
- In a bench trial, appellate review of fact findings is deferential; credibility-based determinations are upheld unless against the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed awards of actual and punitive damages where a life tenant failed to pay taxes and arranged a tax-sale purchase that threatened the remainderman’s interest, held the remainderman’s redemption was a protective payment rather than a voluntary one, affirmed the denial of a mandatory injunction as within the trial court’s discretion given an adequate damages remedy, and upheld the trial court’s resolution of the disputed $5,000 loan based on credibility and the manifest-weight standard.


Hausmann v. Hausmann, 596 N.E.2d 216 (1992)