## Facts

- A decedent’s estate passed equally to her three children: Anne, Bo, and Win; much of the estate consisted of farm and commercial property and a beach house on Edisto Island.
- The siblings executed a written private agreement allocating estate property; Anne and Bo took the beach house (and other parcels) as tenants in common and intended to manage the properties jointly.
- The parties’ relationship deteriorated; Anne complained that jointly owned property was not being used equally.
- The beach house was operated as a rental property through 1995; evidence showed substantial gross rental receipts, while Bo contended net income was minimal after expenses.
- Around 1996, Bo began living in the beach house full-time without informing Anne.
- In 1997, Bo changed the locks without notice to Anne and did not provide her a key.
- Bo stated he did not intend to give Anne a key unless ordered to do so by a court.
- Anne claimed Bo’s exclusive occupancy combined with denial of access amounted to an ouster and sought rent for the period of exclusive possession.

## Issues

1. Whether a cotenant ousts another cotenant by occupying jointly owned property exclusively, changing the locks, refusing to provide a key, and stating access will be denied absent a court order.
2. Whether a finding of ouster makes the occupying cotenant liable to the excluded cotenant for rent or the reasonable rental value during the period of exclusion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals and held that Bo ousted Anne as a matter of law.
- The court ruled that Bo’s lock change, failure to provide a key, and expressed intent to deny access repudiated Anne’s equal right of possession.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, including an accounting and determination of rent or compensation attributable to the ouster.

## Legal Principles

- Each tenant in common has an equal right to possess the whole property, and possession by one cotenant is ordinarily treated as possession for all.
- A cotenant in possession is generally not liable to a cotenant out of possession for rent unless the occupying cotenant agreed to pay rent or ousted the other cotenant.
- Ouster occurs when a cotenant in possession denies the other cotenant’s right to enter or otherwise acts inconsistently with the other cotenant’s equal right of possession.
- Exclusive possession combined with acts that physically or practically exclude the other cotenant—such as changing locks and refusing access—can establish ouster and trigger liability for the excluded cotenant’s share of reasonable rental value.

## Conclusion

The court held that a cotenant who changes locks, withholds a key, and declares continued denial of access has ousted the other cotenant; the occupying cotenant must account for the excluded cotenant’s share of reasonable rental value for the period of exclusion.


Parker v. Shecut, 349 S.C. 226, 562 S.E.2d 620 (S.C. 2002)