Do Co-owners of Property Have To Pay For Their Share of Property Expenses?
Co-tenants are required to pay their proportionate share of expenses incurred on jointly owned property. Florida courts have held that co-tenants have a mutual obligation to pay charges on co-owned property including mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and required repairs.
In partition actions, Florida courts have held that where a co-tenant pays more than his or her share, he or she is entitled to a credit from the sales proceeds in the partition sale. Where expenditures are characterized as necessary to preserve the property, Florida supports contribution by other co-tenants. However, if the co-tenant demands contributions for such expenses, and also resides on the property, the other co-tenants may then make a claim for fair rent for the claimant’s use of the property.
While Florida law generally does not compel a co-tenant to pay for unauthorized improvements, equity may allow for the recovery of the value of the improvement, but not the cost of the improvement. Where a co-tenant has improved the property, thereby increasing its value, and there is a partition sale, the tenant who made the improvement may be awarded the additional amount which the property brings because of the improvement. In determining this amount, the court takes into consideration the fair market value of the property with and without the improvement, and, if on the sale it, sells below its real value, the allowance for the improvement must be reduced in proportion. The cost of the improvements is not allowed, nor is their full value, unless the property sells for its full value. The additional amount realized on the sale over and above what would have been realized if the improvements had not been made is entirely the result of the expenditure and industry of the tenant who had the work done, and justice obviously demands that the tenant who created this additional value should get the entire benefit of it provided that the other cotenants get what they would have received if the improvements had not been made.
Fernandez v. Marrero, 282 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA, 2019); Cauble v. Kaczmarkski, 421 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2025), Hernandez v. Hernandez, 645 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1994); Potter v. Garrett, 52 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1951); Barrow v. Barrow, 527 So.2d 1373 (Fla. 1988).