Vern and Nancy lived half the year in California and half in Montana. They were not married. Vern inherited a home from his dad in Glasgow that served as their Montana residence. Vern purchased two additional properties in Glasgow: an additional home they fixed up for a rental with a loan secured by his inherited home and another run-down property for cash. He placed both of these two additional acquired properties in his and Nancy’s name jointly.
Vern and Nancy ended their relationship after 8 years. Vern sued for partition of the two jointly titled properties. The trial court awarded the rental to him and ordered him to pay Nancy $5,400 for her contribution to the property. Based upon emails between the parties post-separation as well as testimony, the trial court found Vern intended the run-down property as a gift to Nancy. The court ordered Vern to deed the property to her or pay her $5,300 for the property.
Vern appealed the portion of the decision awarding Nancy the run-down property. He argued that he had not intended to simply give Nancy the property — and in any event, legal title was in their names jointly and there was no evidence of delivery.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the decision, emphasizing that partition actions are actions in equity. In a partition action, the court starts with the presumption that jointly titled property is owned in equal shares. That presumption is rebuttable, however. Evidence of unequal contribution to the property is sufficient to lead to another presumption: that the parties own shares based upon their relative contribution. That presumption is rebuttable too: by evidence that one party intended a gift to the other. According to the Supreme Court evidence of intent to gift casts a wide net: “The party may establish proof of a gift by parol evidence, such as conduct over the course of time, the relationship between the two parties, the sharing of expenses, labor, or any other admissible means.” One might wonder what evidence could not be offered as proof of a gift.
The case is Anderson v. Woodward 2009 MT 144
Great post! Just wanted to let you know you have a new subscriber- me!