Notably, the trial judge handwrote in the margins of the order that "this was ouster." In its written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court also recited the three elements of ouster as set forth in Yakavonis v. Tilton, 93 Wn.App. 304, 306, 968 P.2d 908 (1998):

As a 5/6 owner of the property, Veronica had a “cognizable claim” of interest in the property; therefore, she was entitled to possess the entire property on equal footing with William and Susan (and the others who jointly owned the remaining 1/6 interest). Yakavonis v. Tilton, 93 Wash.App. 304, 312, 968 P.2d 908 (1998) (“ ‘[E]ach tenant in common of a possessory estate is entitled to possession, equally with his cotenants, of all parts of the land at all times.’ ”) (emphasis added)

Some jurisdictions allow no rental value offset under any circumstances. See Kline v. Kline, 85 Md.App. 28, 581 A.2d 1300, 1310 (Md.Ct. Spec.App. 1990); Yakavonis v. Tilton, 93 Wash. App. 304, 968 P.2d 908 (1998). Others allow offsets only against claims for improvements.

In fact, the great weight of authority is that an ousted tenant is entitled to the reasonable rental value of their portion of the property, but is still responsible for “their share of the necessary property maintenance expenses after ouster.” Yakavonis v. Tilton, 93 Wash.App. 304, 968 P.2d 908, 912 (1998); accord. Wood v. Collins, 812 P.2d 951, 958 (Alaska 1991) (explaining that excluded cotenant who paid all of the maintenance costs was entitled to half of the rental value and credit for half of the maintenance payments); First Nat'l Bank of Denver v. Groussman, 29 Colo.App. 215, 483 P.2d 398, 402 (1971) (deducting maintenance costs from rental value); Capital Fin. Co. of Del. Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi, 398 N.J.Super. 299, 942 A.2d 21, 28 (App.Div.2008) (reciting rule that ousted tenant may receive rental value minus maintenance payments made by tenant in possession); Sirianni v. Sirianni, 14 A.D.2d 432, 221 N.Y.S.2d 693, 699 (1961) (explaining that excluded tenant “may recover from his co-tenant his just proportion of the rents and profits of the property so held,” but “the court may take into account and charge against receipts, the carrying charges of the property”); Kerney v. Kerney, 120 R.I. 209, 386 A.2d 1100, 1103 (1978) (awarding no contribution expenses to tenant in possessio

Ouster occurs when a cotenant obtains sole possession of the land that is adverse to the other cotenant, 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 her intention to hold, occupy, and enjoy the premises exclusively. Yakavonis v. Tilton, 93 Wn.App. 304, 308, 968 P.2d 908 (1998). Evidence of an ouster must be "clear, unequivocal, unmistakable or convincing."

Yakavonis v. Tilton, 93 Wn.App. 304, 313, 968 P.2d 908 (1998).

While the Dempcys contend that self-help is available, they rely only on cases that did not involve a committee or any allocation of responsibility amongst the co-owners. See Yakavonis v. Tilton, 93 Wn.App. 304, 307, 968 P.2d 908 (1998); In re Estate of Foster, 139 Wash. 224, 225-26, 246 P. 290 (1926); Womach v. Sandyqren, 107 Wash. 80, 81-82, 180 P. 922 (1919). Here, the CC&Rs govern maintenance of the common property, and they do not authorize self-help.

While the Dempcys contend that self-help is available, they rely only on cases that did not involve a committee or any allocation of responsibility amongst the co-owners. See Yakavonis v. Tilton, 93 Wn.App. 304, 307, 968 P.2d 908 (1998); In re Estate of Foster. 139 Wash. 224, 225-26, 246 P. 290 (1926); Womach v. Sandygren, 107 Wash. 80, 81-82, 180 P. 922 (1919). Here, the CC&Rs govern maintenance of the common property, and they do not authorize self-help.

As an equitable remedy, a cotenant is entitled to reasonable rental value of the time period during which the other tenant effects an ouster. See Yakavonis v. Tilton, 93 Wn.App. 304, 309, 968 P.2d 908 (1998).

When an occupying cotenant ousts a non-occupying cotenant, the former begins to owe rent. Yakavonis v. Tilton. 93 Wn.App. 304, 309, 968 P.2d 908(1998).