Yakavonis v. Tilton
Court of Appeals of Washington
968 P.2d 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998)
Facts
Thomas Yakavonis (plaintiff) and Sonja Tilton (defendant) were in a relationship for nine years. During that time, they owned several residential properties as tenants in common. In 1986, they ended their relationship and sold off most of the properties. At issue in this case is one house. Tilton moved into the house in 1986, but shared ownership with Yakavonis until 1992, when he filed to partition the property. On January 1, 1994, the trial court gave Tilton the title to the house, and gave her offsets against Yakavonis’ interest in the house for expenses in maintaining the house. Because the offsets were greater than the value of Yakavonis’s interest in the property, the trial court entered judgment for Tilton in the amount of $5,793.47. Yakavonis appealed, and the appellate court remanded for an accounting of the benefits and costs incurred by each party. After the accounting, the trial court held that Yakavonis was ousted from the house on January 1, 1997, and that it would not consider the benefit to Tilton of her living in the house. After a motion for modification, the court awarded Tilton judgment of $8,459.50. Yakavonis appealed again, arguing that the trial court had erred when it found he had not been ousted from the property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Coleman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
