## Facts

- Eric Von Drake (plaintiff) and Edgar Lynn Rogers (defendant) are brothers who became co-owners in indivision of their mother’s former home in Shreveport, Louisiana.
- Ownership interests were unequal: Eric owned an undivided one-third interest and Edgar owned an undivided two-thirds interest.
- In the early 1990s, Eric renovated a back room of the house for his own use.
- Eric last lived at the family home in 1999 and later lived in Dallas; he left some personal property in the back room.
- After their mother died in 2002, Edgar and his family remained in possession of the home.
- The brothers’ relationship deteriorated after their mother’s death, leading to prolonged personal conflict and multiple legal disputes regarding the property.
- Eric filed suit seeking his share of the home’s fair rental value, alleging Edgar refused to let him use or occupy the property; related proceedings included an action to partition the co-owned property.
- The parties offered conflicting testimony about access to the home and the course of their disputes.
- The trial court found that the balance of the evidence showed Eric’s conduct was aimed at harassing Edgar rather than making a good-faith effort to use or live in the home, and it denied Eric’s claim for rent.

## Issues

1. Is a non-possessing co-owner entitled to recover a proportionate share of fair rental value from a co-owner in possession absent proof that the possessor wrongfully excluded the claimant from use of the co-owned home?
2. Did the trial court commit reversible error in denying Eric’s rent claim based on its factual finding that Eric had not been wrongfully excluded and was not genuinely seeking to co-occupy the property?

## Decision

- The Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying Eric’s claim for fair rental value.
- The court held that the trial court’s findings—crediting evidence that Eric was not truly attempting to use or live in the house and that wrongful exclusion was not proved—were entitled to deference and were not shown to be clearly wrong.
- Because Eric did not establish the factual basis required for rent between co-owners (wrongful exclusion/ouster), Edgar owed no rental payments to Eric for Edgar’s occupancy of the home.

## Legal Principles

- Co-owners in indivision each have a right to use and enjoy the common property, but one co-owner’s occupancy does not automatically create a duty to pay rent to another co-owner.
- A co-owner seeking rent (or fair rental value) from a co-owner in possession generally must prove wrongful exclusion (ouster) or a refusal of the claimant’s reasonable attempt to exercise co-possession rights.
- A claim for co-owner rent turns on facts showing that the non-possessing co-owner was actually denied use after a bona fide attempt to use or occupy the property; mere nonuse by the claimant, standing alone, is insufficient.
- Appellate review of a trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings in a co-owner rent dispute is deferential; absent manifest error, the trial court’s findings will be upheld.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed denial of Eric’s demand for fair rental value because co-owner rent is not owed simply because one co-owner lives in the property; the claimant must prove wrongful exclusion, and the trial court reasonably found that Eric was not genuinely seeking to co-occupy the home and had not been wrongfully kept out.


Von Drake v. Rogers, 996 So. 2d 608 (2008)