Connection lost
Server error
Spiller v. MacKereth Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Cotenants disputed whether one’s sole use of common property constituted an “ouster” requiring rent payment. The Alabama Supreme Court held no ouster occurred absent a demand for entry and refusal.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that for a cotenant in possession to owe rent, an “ouster” requires more than mere sole occupancy; it necessitates an actual denial of the other cotenant’s right to enter upon demand.
Spiller v. MacKereth Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
John Robert Spiller and Hettie Mackereth were tenants in common of a commercial building in Tuscaloosa, each holding an undivided one-half interest. Initially, the property was leased to a third-party business, Auto-Rite. After Spiller acquired his interest, and following unsuccessful negotiations where each party offered to buy the other’s share, Spiller filed a suit for sale for division of the property. Subsequently, in October 1973, Auto-Rite vacated the premises. Spiller then began to occupy and use the entire building as a warehouse for his own business. On November 15, 1973, Mackereth, through her attorney, sent a letter to Spiller demanding that he either vacate one-half of the building or pay rent for his occupancy. Spiller did not vacate, pay rent, or otherwise respond to the letter. Mackereth filed a counterclaim in Spiller’s partition action, alleging ouster and seeking $2,100 in rent. Spiller had also placed new locks on the building after Auto-Rite moved out and removed the old ones, stating this was to protect his merchandise. There was no evidence that Mackereth ever requested keys to the new locks or was physically prevented from entering the building.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did a cotenant’s sole occupancy of the common property, coupled with his failure to respond to the other cotenant’s demand to either vacate half the premises or pay rent, constitute an ouster rendering the occupying cotenant liable for rent?
No, Spiller’s actions did not constitute an ouster. The trial court’s award Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea comm
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did a cotenant’s sole occupancy of the common property, coupled with his failure to respond to the other cotenant’s demand to either vacate half the premises or pay rent, constitute an ouster rendering the occupying cotenant liable for rent?
Conclusion
This case provides a definitive standard for ouster in cotenancy disputes concerning Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco lab
Legal Rule
In the absence of an agreement to pay rent or an ouster Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa
Legal Analysis
The Alabama Supreme Court distinguished between two uses of the term "ouster": Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia dese
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A cotenant in sole possession is not liable for rent unless