Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)

Citation
Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)
Parent Document
Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
1989-06-23

Other Sections in This Document (98)

Full Text

1,231 chars
*242 While no definitive answer to this question appears in the literature, the following general principle can be derived from the authorities: Where monetary damages are involved, a tenant in common, acting alone, may recover only his or her fractional share. See Jablonsky v. Klemm, 377 N.W.2d 560, 569-70 (N.D.1985) (citing 4A Powell, The Law of Real Property § 606, at 625-27 (1982)); see also Jefferson Lumber Co. v. Berry, 247 Ala. 164, 168, 23 So.2d 7, 10 (1945) (while plaintiff could not recover damages with respect to his cotenant's interest, he could sue for and recover his proportionate share of the damages suffered); Werner v. Quality Service Oil Co., 337 Pa.Super. 264, 269, 486 A.2d 1009, 1012 (1984) (cotenant can maintain an action to recover monetary damages for injury done to his interest in the property); Hicks v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Corp., 188 S.W.2d 915, 921 (Tex.Civ.App. 1945) ("each tenant in common is only entitled to the possession of his own share of the damages"); and 4 G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property § 1816, at 257 (replacement ed. 1979) ("where there is injury to the realty each cotenant can sue individually to recover his particular share").