Jan282026
Partition Action Q&A Series

What happens if the other co-owner claims there’s property damage like a burst pipe, but I don’t think it’s true or they haven’t shown proof? – North Carolina

Short Answer

In North Carolina, a co-owner’s claim of property damage does not automatically reduce another co-owner’s share or create a right to reimbursement. If the claim matters to a settlement or a partition case, the co-owner raising it typically needs to back it up with practical proof (photos, invoices, insurance documents, contractor reports) and show how it affected the property or required necessary repairs. If the claim is really an accusation that a co-owner caused damage, the issue usually turns on evidence of “waste” and causation, not just suspicion.

Understanding the Problem

In a North Carolina co-ownership dispute involving a parent’s house, a common settlement roadblock is a co-owner claiming serious damage (such as a burst pipe) while the other co-owner disputes that the damage happened, disputes the severity, or has not been shown proof. The practical question is whether an unproven damage claim can be used to demand repairs, reduce a co-owner’s share, or justify extra credits for “carrying costs” before agreeing to sell the property (including a possible as-is sale). The decision point is whether the claim is being used as (1) a request for contribution for repairs/carrying costs, or (2) an allegation that a co-owner harmed the property.

Apply the Law

North Carolina partition law and co-tenant rules generally separate (a) reimbursement for legitimate expenses that preserve the property from (b) liability for damage a co-owner wrongfully causes. In a partition proceeding, a co-owner can ask the court to account for certain “carrying costs” and, in some situations, necessary repairs or improvements—but those requests are fact-driven and usually require documentation. If a co-owner claims another co-owner caused damage, North Carolina also recognizes a claim for “waste” between co-owners, which likewise depends on proof of what happened and who caused it.

Key Requirements

  • Proof the damage exists and matters: A claim like “there was a burst pipe” is stronger when supported by objective evidence (photos/videos, plumber’s report, water mitigation invoice, insurance claim records, mold testing, or a contractor scope of work) and tied to a real impact (needed repair, reduced sale value, or safety issue).
  • Proper category of claim (repairs/carrying costs vs. wrongdoing): A request to split necessary repairs or carrying costs is different from an accusation that a co-owner caused damage. The first focuses on preservation expenses; the second focuses on fault and causation.
  • Timing and possession issues: Contribution and reimbursement can depend on when the expense was incurred and whether one co-owner had exclusive possession during the period in question.

What the Statutes Say

Analysis

Apply the Rule to the Facts: Here, one co-owner is raising property-damage claims (like a burst pipe) while also demanding proof of repairs and carrying costs and raising access issues. Under North Carolina practice in these disputes, the damage claim becomes important only if it is being used to (1) demand that the other co-owner pay part of a repair/carrying-cost item, or (2) argue that a co-owner caused damage and should bear responsibility. In either direction, the claim usually needs documentation and a clear connection between the alleged damage and a real expense or loss.

Process & Timing

  1. Who raises the issue: The co-owner claiming damage or seeking reimbursement/credits. Where: If negotiations fail, the issue is typically addressed in a partition proceeding in the Superior Court in the county where the real property is located. What: The claim is usually presented as a request for contribution/credits (with supporting documents) or as a separate allegation of waste/damage (with evidence of causation). When: In a partition case, a request for contribution for carrying costs/improvements can be asserted during the partition proceeding. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 46A-27(b).
  2. Evidence exchange in settlement: A practical settlement approach is to request a short, specific proof package: (a) dated photos/videos, (b) plumber/contractor diagnosis, (c) invoices/receipts and proof of payment, (d) insurance claim documents (if any), and (e) a timeline showing when the damage was discovered and what was done to prevent further loss.
  3. How it affects the sale: If the parties agree to sell as-is, the damage claim may still matter for pricing and disclosure decisions, but it does not automatically create a right to reduce another co-owner’s share without a documented basis for contribution, reimbursement, or waste.

Exceptions & Pitfalls

  • “Necessary repairs” vs. upgrades: A co-owner may have a stronger argument for contribution for necessary repairs that preserve the property than for optional upgrades. North Carolina statutes treat repairs and improvements differently, and improvements in partition are generally limited to the lesser of value added or actual cost. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 46A-27(a) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-86(b).
  • Exclusive possession can change reimbursement: If one co-owner had exclusive possession during the period repairs were made or interest was paid, reimbursement rules can be limited. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-86(a), (c).
  • Conflating “damage exists” with “someone is at fault”: A burst pipe can be accidental, age-related, or weather-related. A waste claim requires proof that a co-owner committed waste, not just that damage occurred. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-536.
  • Access and documentation standoffs: Refusing reasonable access for inspection can prolong the dispute and increase suspicion. On the other hand, paying or agreeing to credits without documentation can lock in an unfair settlement position. A common middle ground is a mutually agreed inspection window and a written list of documents required to support any claimed credits.
  • Tax and carrying-cost limits: In a partition proceeding, property-tax contribution is limited to taxes paid during the 10 years before the partition petition (plus interest at the legal rate). See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 46A-27(c).

For more background on how courts handle credits and documentation in these disputes, see credit or reimbursement for repairs and upkeep and itemized repair estimates before an agreement to sell.

Conclusion

In North Carolina, a co-owner’s unproven claim of property damage (like a burst pipe) does not automatically create a right to reimbursement or reduce another co-owner’s share. If the claim is used to demand credits for repairs or carrying costs, it should be supported with objective documentation and tied to qualifying expenses under partition contribution rules. If the claim is an accusation of wrongdoing, it generally requires proof of waste and causation. The next step is to demand a written proof package (photos, reports, invoices, and proof of payment) before agreeing to any repair credits.

Talk to a Partition Action Attorney

If a co-owner is raising unverified damage claims to delay a sale or demand credits for repairs and carrying costs, our firm has experienced attorneys who can help clarify what proof matters and how these issues are handled in North Carolina partition disputes. Call us today at 919-341-7055.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about North Carolina law based on the single question stated above. It is not legal advice for your specific situation and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, procedures, and local practice can change and may vary by county. If you have a deadline, act promptly and speak with a licensed North Carolina attorney.

Category: Partition Action Q&A Series

Author: Pierce Law

Pierce Law Group is a North Carolina law firm focused on probate administration, real estate partition matters, and surplus funds claims across North Carolina. We know these situations often come with stress, family dynamics, and time-sensitive decisions—so we prioritize clear communication, steady guidance, and a practical plan from day one. Our goal is to make a complicated process feel manageable, while protecting what matters most to you.