Martin v. Martin Kentucky Court of Appeals, 1994. Facts: J. Garis and Peggy Martin (plaintiffs) owned an undivided one-eighth interest in a tract of land. The interest had been conveyed to Garis by his father Charles Martin. Charles and his wife Mary (defendants) owned a life estate in the remaining undivided seventh-eighths interest in the land, with remainder to Garis and Peggy. In 1982, Charles built a four-lot mobile home park on the property and rented it out. Garis and Peggy moved their mobile home onto one of the lots in 1990. They paid no rent for the lot, and contributed no funds for the maintenance of the lots. Nonetheless, that same year they filed suit to gain one-eighth of the net rent that Charles and Mary received from the lots. Procedural History: The trial court agreed that Plaintiffs were entitled to one-eighth of the rental income, but were also required to pay reasonable rent for the lot that they occupied. P appealed. D argues that a cotenant is required to pay rent to other cotenants when that cotenant exercises her right to possession to the exclusion of other cotenants. Issue: Is a cotenant required to pay rent to other cotenants? Holding: No. Generally cotenants are not required to pay rent, but may assume such a requirement under an agreement to pay rent or by subjecting other cotenants to an ouster. Reasoning: A cotenant does not owe rent to other cotenants unless he has agreed to pay rent or ousted them from the property. This is a case of a tenancy in common. Tenants in common each have a right to possess the entire property, even if they have different fractional shares of ownership. A cotenant who occupies a property must divide rent from outside parties with other cotenants, but receives credit for costs of maintaining the property. But cotenants occupying a property do not owe other cotenants rent, unless there is ouster or an agreement to pay rent. Ouster occurs only when one cotenant exclusively possesses the entire property, and denies that the other cotenants have any right to the property. In this case, Garis and Peggy are entitled to e in one-eighth of the rent from the mobile home parking lot, and do not owe rent to Charles and Mary. Garis and Peggy did not agree to pay rent, and they did not oust Charles and Mary by physically occupying one of the four mobile home parking lots. Accordingly, this court reluctantly reverses the award of rent to Charles and Mary Martin.