## Facts

- J. Garis Martin and Peggy Martin owned an undivided one-eighth interest in a tract of land in Pike County, Kentucky.
- Garis’s father, Charles Martin, conveyed that one-eighth interest to Garis in 1971.
- Charles Martin and his wife, Mary Martin, held a life estate in the remaining undivided seven-eighths interest in the land for their joint lives, with the remainder interest to Garis and Peggy.
- In 1982, Charles improved part of the property by developing a four-lot mobile home park.
- Charles and Mary rented the lots to third parties and collected the rental income, while also handling upkeep and maintenance connected to the park.
- In July 1990, Garis and Peggy moved their own mobile home onto one of the four lots.
- Garis and Peggy paid no rent for the lot they occupied and contributed no money toward improvements or maintenance of the mobile home park.
- In 1990, Garis and Peggy filed an action seeking an accounting and payment of their claimed one-eighth share of the net rents Charles and Mary received from the mobile home park.
- The trial court granted an accounting and allowed Garis and Peggy to recover their share of rents collected from third parties.
- The trial court also required Garis and Peggy to pay “reasonable rent” to Charles and Mary for the lot Garis and Peggy personally occupied.
- Garis and Peggy appealed only the portion of the judgment requiring them to pay reasonable rent for their occupied lot.

## Issues

1. Must one cotenant pay rent to other cotenants for the reasonable value of the cotenant’s own occupancy of part of the co-owned property, absent an ouster or an agreement to pay rent?

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the judgment requiring Garis and Peggy to pay reasonable rent for the lot they occupied.
- The court held that, under the majority rule followed in Kentucky, an occupying cotenant is not liable to pay rent (or account for the value of occupancy) to other cotenants unless the occupying cotenant has ousted the others or agreed to pay rent.
- The court noted that an accounting for rents received from third parties was proper, but that principle did not justify charging Garis and Peggy rent for their own use where there was no ouster or agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Tenancy in common is characterized by unity of possession: each cotenant, regardless of fractional share, has a right to possess the whole property.
- A cotenant who receives rents from third parties for use of co-owned property generally must account to other cotenants for their proportional share of those receipts, subject to proper credits (such as certain maintenance expenses) in an accounting.
- By contrast, a cotenant’s personal occupancy of the premises does not, by itself, create liability to pay rent to other cotenants.
- An occupying cotenant owes rent to other cotenants only if (1) the occupying cotenant ousts or excludes the other cotenants from possession, or (2) the occupying cotenant agrees to pay rent.
- A court may not impose rent for occupancy between cotenants merely because it seems equitable on the facts; absent ouster or agreement, the rule bars charging rent for use and occupation.

## Conclusion

Martin v. Martin, 878 S.W.2d 30 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994), held that although cotenants may obtain an accounting for rental income collected from third parties on co-owned property, an occupying cotenant cannot be required to pay “reasonable rent” to other cotenants for the value of the cotenant’s own occupancy unless there is an ouster or an agreement to pay; because neither was shown, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s rent charge for the lot Garis and Peggy occupied.


Martin v. Martin, 878 S.W.2d 30 (1994)