Gillmor v. Gillmor
case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
694 P.2d 1037
CASE SYNOPSIS: (D)
cotenant appealed from a monetary judgment of the trial court (Utah)
in favor of (P) cotenant following a ruling that (D) had
obstructed her from exercising her right to occupy land in which she
owned an undivided interest with (D) and (D's) brother. (D) also contended that the trial court erred in finding that (D) had exercised exclusive possession of the land as to have
excluded (P).
FACTS:
(P) brought an action against (D) and his brother claiming that they had kept her from grazing her livestock on the land.
They owned the land as tenants in common.
An earlier ruling was made in favor of (P) and the land was partitioned.
(P) then filed an action for an accounting and damages.
The trial was divided into two phases covering different time periods.
Following the award to the (P), the (D) appealed.
HOLDING:
The court affirmed ruling in part and reversed it in part, holding first that (P's) clear demand that (D) share the land coupled with (D's) refusal to accommodate (P) established a claim for relief.
ANALYSIS:
(P) did not have to graze her livestock on the land, and thereby damage the land, to establish that she had a right to a claim.
The basis for damages in the second phase of the trial was correct because (D) had not challenged the underlying calculation or the trial court's failure to consider the value of (D's) services, as the trial court had done in the 1st phase.
The award was reversed to the extent that the award did not account for repairs that the (D) made to the common property.
CONCLUSION:
The court affirmed that part of the trial court's ruling that defendant had ousted (P) from the land they owned as cotenants.
The court affirmed the damage award to the extent of the basis for calculation but reversed the award to the extent it did not consider the repairs made by (D) to the common property.
FACTS:
(P) brought an action against (D) and his brother claiming that they had kept her from grazing her livestock on the land.
They owned the land as tenants in common.
An earlier ruling was made in favor of (P) and the land was partitioned.
(P) then filed an action for an accounting and damages.
The trial was divided into two phases covering different time periods.
Following the award to the (P), the (D) appealed.
HOLDING:
The court affirmed ruling in part and reversed it in part, holding first that (P's) clear demand that (D) share the land coupled with (D's) refusal to accommodate (P) established a claim for relief.
ANALYSIS:
(P) did not have to graze her livestock on the land, and thereby damage the land, to establish that she had a right to a claim.
The basis for damages in the second phase of the trial was correct because (D) had not challenged the underlying calculation or the trial court's failure to consider the value of (D's) services, as the trial court had done in the 1st phase.
The award was reversed to the extent that the award did not account for repairs that the (D) made to the common property.
CONCLUSION:
The court affirmed that part of the trial court's ruling that defendant had ousted (P) from the land they owned as cotenants.
The court affirmed the damage award to the extent of the basis for calculation but reversed the award to the extent it did not consider the repairs made by (D) to the common property.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment