Whippie v. O'Connor
190 Vt. 600
Vt.2011Background
- Parties had a 10-year relationship and purchased a house as tenants in common in 2002; both signed the mortgage and deed.
- Plaintiff stopped paying her share of household expenses in early 2003; separation occurred in January 2004 with a relief-from-abuse petition.
- A final relief-from-abuse order in March 2004 granted defendant possession and parental rights; the order expired August 2004.
- Defendant issued a no-trespass letter to plaintiff after August 2004, restricting her access to the home.
- Plaintiff filed a partition action in January 2005 seeking a public sale and division of proceeds; trial court found ouster via the no-trespass letter and set an initial offset.
- On remand, court adjusted shares based on maintenance costs during the ouster and awarded plaintiff an additional offset for the ouster period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there ouster via defendant's no-trespass letter? | Whippie contends ouster occurred August 2004. | No ouster since possession was authorized by family court order. | Yes, ouster found; August 2004 evidence supports it. |
| How should maintenance costs be allocated during the ouster period? | Plaintiff entitled to no maintenance costs during ouster; Massey controls. | Maintenance costs during ouster should not be charged to plaintiff. | Maintain rule that ousted cotenant may be credited for reasonable rental value offset with maintenance costs; ruling remands for precise calculation. |
| Does the family court order affect ouster analysis? | Family court order does not preclude ouster findings. | Order defeats ouster claim. | Family court order does not preclude ouster; ouster can be found notwithstanding the order. |
| Was the calculation of the final equity share correct after ouster? | Plaintiff should receive rental-offset plus share of equity. | Defendant should receive greater equity after maintenance deductions. | Remanded to recompute by deducting half of maintenance costs during ouster and applying rental-offset accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massey v. Hrostek, 186 Vt. 211 (2009 VT 70) (establishes general rule of cotenant cost sharing and ouster offset mechanics; later overruled regarding maintenance during ouster)
- Richardson v. Richardson, 111 Vt. 140 (1940 VT) (prior rule allowing maintenance costs during exclusive possession; not overruled entirely)
- Rogers v. Wells, 174 Vt. 492 (2002 VT) (family court has no jurisdiction over property division of unmarried parents)
- In re Estate of Peters, 171 Vt. 381 (2000 VT) (evidentiary/preserving issues in estate matters (evidentiary standard))