JANICE R. LOWE, APPELLANT,
v.
GORDON B. SCOTT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Lowe and Scott became tenants in common in rental property, with Scott acquiring a one-half interest in 1982. Scott sued for partition and accounting when he received no income, and the trial court awarded him $15,146.20. The appellate court affirmed the accounting methodology but reversed and remanded because it could not determine how the trial court calculated the final judgment amount.
The trial court correctly determined that Scott was entitled to one-half the net income beginning January 1, 1982, and properly denied Lowe's attempt to set off pre-1982 loan repayments against post-1981 income. However, the court's final judgment amount of $15,146.20 could not be verified from the record, requiring recalculation.
[1] A co-tenant is entitled to one half of the net income from rental property beginning on the date agreed upon by the parties.
[2] A co-tenant cannot set off against post-agreement income the repayment of loans made to pay expenses incurred prior to the agreement.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Scott was entitled to one half the income from the property beginning on January 1, 1982, less one half the expenses incurred against the property after that date.”
Establishes the court's finding on the proper accounting methodology and the date from which Scott's entitlement to income began.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott acquired a one-half interest in rental property from Lowe's husband before the husband's death. The parties agreed that Lowe could collect renta…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Net Income cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of $15,146.20 determined to be owed as the result of an accounting.
Appellant (Lowe) and appellee (Scott) became tenants in common in certain rental property as a result of Scott having acquired a one-half interest from Lowe’s husband before his death. Lowe collected the rentals and paid the expenses arising from the property. When Scott did not receive any money from Lowe, he filed suit for partition and an accounting. He obtained the appointment of a receiver, pending disposition of the suit. Upon final hearing the court determined that Lowe owed Scott $15,146.20.
In the final judgment the court found that Scott was entitled to one half the income from the property beginning on January 1, 1982, less one half the expenses incurred against the property after that date. The record fully supports this finding because Scott testified he had agreed that Lowe could collect the rentals prior to 1982 and keep whatever money was left after the payment of expenses applicable to the property. He stated that beginning in 1982, he was to receive one half the net income from the property. The court further found that Lowe could not set off against post-1981 income the repayment of loans allegedly made to pay expenses of the property before 1982. This was a proper conclusion because in view of the agreement of the parties, Scott should not be saddled with expenses that were incurred prior to the date on which he was entitled to share in the income.
Given these findings, we are unable to ascertain how the court arrived at the figure of $15,146.20 as being the sum owed by Lowe to Scott. Scott argues that an integral part of the court's calculation was the determination that Lowe owed him $14,150, representing one half of the rentals of $28,-300 which were reflected in Lowe’s accounting. However, the accounting shows that of these rentals, $17,350 was collected in 1981. Likewise, we cannot discern which of the post-1981 payments the court determined to be improper setoffs. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s findings concerning the methodology of the accounting, but we reverse the judgment and remand the case for a recalculation of the appropriate amount owing to Scott.
CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.