A.P. NOTT AND LANETTYE W. HARRELL, JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF C.B. WARNER, DECEASED, ET AL., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
GERALD HOWELL AND MARY ANN HARRELL GARDNER HOWELL, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
The court affirmed the trial court's equitable award of recovery for improvements made to real property, reduced by the reasonable rental value of the property during the period the improvers occupied it rent-free, where the improvers had a reasonable but unenforceable expectation of receiving the property upon the owner's death.
A party who makes improvements to another's real property with the owner's knowledge and a reasonable expectation of receiving the property upon the owner's death may recover for those improvements in equity, reduced by the reasonable rental value of the property during any period of rent-free occupancy.
[1] A party who makes improvements to another's real property with the owner's knowledge and a reasonable expectation of receiving the property upon the owner's death may rec…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Howells made improvements to a house owned by Mrs. Howell's uncle, C.B. Warner, with Warner's knowledge and based on his representations, includin…
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 Reasonable Rental Value cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Howells made improvements to a house belonging to Mrs. Howell’s uncle, C.B. Warner (now deceased), with Mr. Warner’s knowledge and with the Howells expectation that it would be conveyed to them upon his death.
The Howells reasonable expectation, though unenforceable, was based upon communications and actions of Mr. Warner, prior to commencement of the remodeling, including Mr. Warner’s act of exhibiting to the Howells and others his last will and testament containing a provision leaving the home to Mrs. Howell. When Warner died leaving a last will and testament which did not include a devise of the property as expected, the Howells filed suit seeking recovery for the improvements to real property they had made. The trial court, acting within its equitable jurisdiction, permitted recovery for the improvements less the reasonable rental value of the property for the years the Howells lived in the house rent-free. Considering the manner in which this case was plead and presented to the trial court, we find that the court made a sound and equitable disposition of the case. King’s Heirs v. Thompson, 9 Pet. 204, 9 L.Ed. 102 (1835); Howie v. Baker, 232 Miss. 661, 100 So. 2d 113 (1958); and Hall v. Milham, 225 Ark. 597, 284 S.W. 2d 108 (1955).
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.