[WSBARP] Ouster

[Shanece Dedeaux]

Is the purpose of this scenario to argue that one party should be entitled to a higher disbursement of the funds? If so, it could arguably be ousting. See below:

Ouster occurs when a cotenant obtains sole possession of the land that is adverse to the other cotenants, where the cotenant repudiates or disavows the relation of the cotenancy or where the tenant without possession is aware of actions by the tenant in possession that signify his or her intention to hold, occupy, and enjoy the premises exclusively.  Yakavonis v. Tilton, 93 Wn. App. 304, 308, 968 P.2d 908, 910 (1998). “In order for ouster to exist, there must be an assertion of a right to exclusive possession.” Cummings v. Anderson, 94 Wash.2d 135, 145, 614 P.2d 1283 (1980). In addition, “where the property is not adaptable to double occupancy, the mere occupation of the property by one cotenant may operate to exclude the other.” Yakavonis, 93 Wn. App. At 308, 968 P.2d 908.

Under your facts, Ouster could be found because of the NCO. The Yakavonis court found Ouster where the trial court determined the ousted party had no interest in the parcel. The trial court’s ruling was deemed erroneous. Although, the ruling was determined to be erroneous and thus ouster, I believe even under a legal NCO it is still ousting because the ruling is “adverse” to the ousted party.

Disclaimer: Quick analysis and response. There may be other rules in play that are not assessed here.

Hope this helps.

Shanece M. Dedeaux | dedeauxs at dedeauxlaw.com<mailto:dedeauxs at dedeauxlaw.com> | 206.333.0448


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2210-2521, is confidential, and may be legally privileged. This email contains information that is private, confidential, or is protected by the attorney-client work product doctrines, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named herein.  If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and delete the original message and any attachments.  Thank you.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Jonathan Smith <jonathan at advantagelegalgroup.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:09 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Ouster
Party A and B own a single family residence as tenants in common. Property has been sold and now funds are to be disbursed. If party A is charged with Assault 4 DV, but party A continues to occupy a single family residence and party B is the is the protected party who as a result does not occupy the property, has party B been ousted?  The NCO remains in effect for the duration of a 18 month SOC, has party B been legally ousted from the property? If so, how so and if not why not? Thank you.

Jonathan Smith
Attorney at Law
(425)452-9797 Tel
(425)440-7681 Fax

[Logo for email]<http://advantagelegalgroup.com/>
12207 NE  8th Street
Bellevue, WA 98005

This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.  This information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Legal Advice Disclaimer: You should recognize that responses provided by this email means are akin to ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion.  A formal opinion could reach a different result. This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship.
[cid:image002.gif at 01D9414F.1E0D4BF0][cid:image003.png at 01D9414F.1E0D4BF0]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230216/84d18842/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5252 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230216/84d18842/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 4747 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230216/84d18842/image002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 75526 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230216/84d18842/image003.png>