## Facts

- Husband and wife separated in June 1983; wife filed for dissolution about two months later.
- The marital residence was community property during marriage and, after dissolution, was held by the parties as tenants in common until distribution.
- Husband moved out of the family home and maintained another residence that also served as his business office; wife remained in exclusive possession of the home.
- A partial decree dissolving the marriage was entered on December 18, 1984, while property division was deferred.
- The final order dividing property was entered on August 31, 1987, after an extended delay.
- Husband sought, among other relief, one-half the home’s reasonable rental value based on alleged constructive ouster, plus various reimbursements and credits involving debts, rents, allegedly missing property, and alleged community contributions to wife’s separate property.
- The district court rejected husband’s claims and divided the property; husband appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether wife’s exclusive occupancy of the former community residence after separation and dissolution constituted constructive ouster requiring her to pay husband one-half the reasonable rental value.
2. Whether the district court erred in rejecting husband’s claims for reimbursement/credits relating to alleged payment of community debts with separate funds, missing community property, rents from community property, community-caused enhancement of wife’s separate property, and missing separate property of husband.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s final property-division order.
- The court held that a cotenant in possession is not ordinarily liable to other cotenants for rent solely due to exclusive occupancy.
- The court recognized that constructive ouster can exist between separated or divorced spouses when living circumstances make shared occupancy impossible or impracticable without fault.
- The court concluded husband was not constructively ousted because he voluntarily left, maintained a separate residence, and delayed asserting any rent claim, supporting a finding of abandonment rather than exclusion.
- The court affirmed the district court’s rejection of husband’s remaining reimbursement and valuation claims.

## Legal Principles

- A cotenant’s mere exclusive occupation of commonly owned property does not, by itself, create an obligation to pay rent to other cotenants.
- After dissolution, former spouses may hold previously community-owned property as tenants in common pending division, and general cotenancy rules apply unless modified by the divorce context.
- Constructive ouster may be found between separated or divorced spouses when shared occupancy is impossible or impracticable due to the marital breakup without fault by either party; in such circumstances, the occupying spouse may owe the non-occupying spouse one-half the reasonable rental value for the relevant interim period.
- Voluntary departure, establishment of an alternative residence, and substantial delay in asserting a rent claim support characterization of the non-occupying spouse’s conduct as abandonment rather than ouster.
- Appellate review will uphold a district court’s property-division determinations where the appellant shows no reversible error in the court’s findings or allocations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the property division and rejected the husband’s rent and reimbursement claims, holding that exclusive occupancy of the marital home did not require rent absent constructive ouster and that the husband’s voluntary departure and delay showed abandonment rather than exclusion.


Olivas v. Olivas, 108 N.M. 814, 780 P.2d 640 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989)