Martin v. Prieto

Appellant owned property as a tenant in common with Appellees, two relatives. Both parties sought to partition the property. The district court concluded that Appellant ousted Appellees from the property and, therefore, must pay them a fair rental value for the use of the property. Appellees became the successful bidders of the property at a second public sale, and the district court approved the sale. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly held that Appellant ousted the cotenant Appellees and must pay them the fair rental value for the time she exclusively occupied the property; (2) the district court’s calculation of the total amount of rent Appellant owed the cotenants was not clearly erroneous; (3) Appellees were entitled to bid at the public sale of the partitioned property and were entitled to bid the value of their interests in the property and a portion of the monetary award for rent in lieu of payment; and (4) Appellant was not entitled to a homestead exemption even though she occupied the partitioned property at times. View "Martin v. Prieto" on Justia Law