- 45 -
proportionate share of mortgage interest where he was entitled to
reimbursement for payments in excess of his proportionate share
under State law, and he in fact received contribution from his
cotenants. See James v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-562.
Gabriel had no personal liability on the loans; however, his
interest in the Foster City residence would have been subject to
foreclosure if the mortgage payments had not been paid. See
Jamison v. Cotton, 28 P.2d 39, 40 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).
California recognizes the right of a cotenant to contribution from
his fellow cotenants for his mortgage payments on the common
property in excess of his proportionate share. See Conley v
Sharpe, 136 P.2d 376 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943); Willmon v. Koyer, 143
P. 694 (Cal. 1914).22 Therefore, Gabriel may deduct mortgage
interest payments beyond his proportionate share to the extent he
actually made the payments and did not receive reimbursement from
his fellow cotenants. See Powell v. Commissioner, supra; Conroy
v. Commissioner, supra.
Gabriel, however, has not established the extent to which the
1996 mortgage interest payments were made with his funds. See
Wells v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-58. Although all mortgage
payments on the Foster City residence in 1996 were made from the
household checking account, which was in Gabriel’s name, Gabriel
22 It is not clear, however, whether a personal judgment
against a cotenant in such a situation is obtainable. See Conley
v. Sharpe, 136 P.2d 376 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943).
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011