A co-owner who pays the property taxes alone is entitled to get the other owner’s share back, and the court can secure that reimbursement with a lien in the partition. In Willmon v. Koyer (1914) 168 Cal. 369, the California Supreme Court stated the duty plainly: “In proportion to their interests all tenants in common are in duty bound to pay taxes.” (Willmon, at p. 374.) The court also held that the paying owner’s motive does not matter, even when he paid while claiming the whole property as his own.
This comes up whenever one owner has carried the property taxes, the mortgage, or the insurance for years while the other paid nothing. Today that reimbursement is part of the accounting a court orders under Code of Civil Procedure section 872.140 in a partition action. This post covers the case behind it.
Why Willmon v. Koyer Matters
- Every co-owner owes a share of the taxes. The duty follows each owner’s interest in the property. (Willmon, at p. 374.)
- The owner who pays is reimbursed as a matter of right. The co-owner who got the benefit must refund a proportionate share. (Willmon, at p. 374.)
- The reason for paying does not matter. The payment benefits every owner “no matter whether one tenant paying it intended the payment to be for his own benefit or not.” (Willmon, at p. 374.)
- The rule covers more than taxes. “This rule equally applies to expenditures other than taxes made for the common benefit.” (Willmon, at p. 374.)
- The court can secure the money with a lien. In a partition, the amount owed can be charged against the share given to the co-owner who did not pay. (Willmon, at p. 375.)
The Facts: A San Pedro Lot and a Seven-Year Fight Over Title
J. C. Willmon and A. S. Koyer co-owned a lot. The earlier appeal between them, Koyer v. Willmon (1907) 150 Cal. 785, describes it as a lot in San Pedro, in Los Angeles County. Willmon took title in his own name, claimed to be the sole owner, and kept Koyer out. Koyer sued in August 1903 to establish his share. Willmon fought the claim until a judgment on January 10, 1910 declared Koyer the owner of one-half as a tenant in common. (Willmon, at pp. 371–373.)
While that fight went on, Willmon paid the bills. Between December 19, 1902 and October 26, 1909, he paid the taxes, a street assessment, and attorney’s fees to defend a lawsuit by a third party that affected the property. Once Koyer’s half was established, Willmon sued for partition and an accounting. The trial court found he had paid $1,045.60, awarded him half, $522.80, and placed a lien for it on the part of the lot allotted to Koyer. Koyer appealed. (Willmon, at p. 371.)
How the Supreme Court Decided the Case
Paying a Common Expense Earns Reimbursement
Koyer argued that Willmon had paid for himself, as a man claiming to own the whole lot, and so was owed nothing. The court agreed that had been Willmon’s attitude, but held: “we do not think that this affords sufficient cause for denying him contribution.” (Willmon, 168 Cal. 369.) It then stated the rule California courts still quote:
“The rule is that when one tenant in common has paid a debt or obligation for the benefit of the joint property, or has discharged a lien or assessment imposed upon it as a common burden, he is entitled as a matter of right to have his cotenant, who has received the benefit of it, refund to him his proportionate share of the amount paid.”
Willmon v. Koyer (1914) 168 Cal. 369, 374
Unpaid taxes are a lien on the land and can lead to its sale, so paying them protects every owner’s share. (Willmon, at p. 374.)
Koyer also attacked the lien. The court found no merit in the objection, explaining that “it is always appropriate to do so in partition as the only effectual way to secure a cotenant” who is owed reimbursement. (Willmon, at p. 375.)
Two Limits: Old Payments and Interest
Willmon did not keep everything. Because he had denied the co-ownership, the two-year deadline in Code of Civil Procedure section 339 began to run on his payments, and $371 tied to payments made more than two years before he sued should have been disallowed. (Willmon, at pp. 371–373.) He also could not collect interest for the time before judgment, because he never asked Koyer to pay his share until he filed suit. (Willmon, at p. 375.)
The Result
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and the order denying a new trial. (Willmon, at p. 375.) Its reasoning left intact the right to reimbursement for the payments made within the two years, and the lien securing it. The older payments and the interest before judgment came out.
What Willmon v. Koyer Means for California Co-Owners
- Keep paying, and keep the records. Paying the taxes protects the property from a tax sale, and your co-owner owes you their share. See what to do when a co-owner is not paying the property taxes.
- The same rule reaches other shared costs. Mortgage payments, insurance, and assessments paid for the common benefit are handled the same way. Our guide to partition offsets explains how courts calculate them.
- Ask for it in the partition. Every partition includes an accounting, as Wallace v. Daley confirms, and what you are owed comes out of your co-owner’s share before the proceeds are divided.
- Do not wait, and ask in writing. Willmon lost his oldest payments and his interest because he denied the co-ownership and never asked for reimbursement. A written demand and a prompt partition action avoid both problems.
Talkov Law's Partition Attorneys Can Help
If your co-owner won’t agree to sell or buy you out, a partition action ends the co-ownership for good. Talkov Law can help. With 12 full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 650 partition actions throughout California, Talkov Law is California’s #1 partition law firm. Our team handles every step of the process, from filing the partition action through the sale or buyout and the final division of the proceeds. Not a single court has denied our clients the right to partition.
Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online for a free consultation with a partition attorney.
