Summary 2010 WY 134

Summary of Decision issued October 7, 2010

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Hofstad v. Christie

Citation: 2010 WY 134

Docket Number: S. 09-0246

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

Representing Appellant (Respondant): Keith R. Nachbar, Casper, WY

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): Harry G. Bondi, Casper WY

Date of Decision: October 7, 2010

URL: http://tiny.cc/bi2b6

Facts: Appellant challenges the district court’s judgment equally partitioning a home owned by him and Appellee as tenants in common

Issues: Whether the district court committed reversible error when it applied Alaska and Montana law and treated an unmarried couple as family members for purposes of dividing real property owned jointly as tenants in common. Whether the district court committed reversible error when it found unequal contributions toward the purchase price of the property, there was no specific evidence of a gift, and yet presumed that a gift of the excess contribution was intended. Whether the district court improperly assigned the burden of proof to the donor to prove the negative – that no gift was made. Whehter in a situation where there was no family relationship, and no specific evidence of any intended gift, should the property be divided according to the proven unequal contributions of the parties.

Holdings: It is widely accepted that if the instrument does not specify the shares of each co-tenant, it will be presumed that they take equal, undivided interests. However, this presumption may be rebutted by parol evidence, such as proof that the co-tenants contributed unequal amounts toward the purchase price of the property, and there is neither a family relationship among the co-tenants nor any evidence of donative intent on the part of those who contributed more than their pro rata amounts toward the purchase price. In the instant case, both parties agree that the property is held by them as tenants in common, inasmuch as the warranty deed did not specify a joint tenancy. Also, both parties agree with the district court’s assessment that Appellant contributed a substantially greater financial amount. Having established that the parties are tenants in common, it still must be determined whether there is either evidence of a family relationship or evidence of donative intent on the part of Appellant, or lack thereof.

Wyo. Stat. 34-13-114 (a)(x) (2009) defines “family members” as follows:

(x) “Member of the minor’s family” means the minor’s parent, stepparent, spouse, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt, whether of whole or half blood or by adoption[.]

However, even the United States Supreme Court recognizes that “family is a much broader term” than just parents and their children. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 543 (1977). Although the term “family relationship” is by no means absolute, the parties do share a family relationship, largely by way of their sharing two children. Even if Appellant and Appellee are not married, nor related by blood, that they lived together on and off for approximately ten years, all the while sharing an intimate relationship which resulted in the birth of their twins is evidence that a family relationship exists. They may never consider themselves “family,” having never been married; however, their twin sons bind the four of them inextricably and forever, resulting in a family relationship.

Property accumulated during cohabitation should be divided by determining the express or implied intent of the parties. In the present action, Appellant’s representation and promise that Appellee would be a “co-owner” or “equal owner” of the residence, and that if they would get back together again he would put title to the property in both names, is evidence of donative intent on his part with respect to the equal undivided one-half interest in the property vested in Appellee. Among the evidence that leads to this conclusion is that in 2005, after the parties were briefly separated, they became engaged, and Appellant represented to Appellee that he would “change,” they would be married within three months, that he would undergo counseling, and that Appellee would be a co-owner or equal owner in the home. Furthermore, as conclusive evidence of this intent, he put Appellee’s name on the deed after they rekindled their relationship. He initiated the purchase of the property of his own volition, but switched course after rekindling his relationship with Appellee. This is persuasive evidence of donative intent.

The district court’s judgment partitioning equally a home the parties owned as tenants in common is affirmed. Given the parties’ children and living situation over the course of the past ten years, a family relationship existed. Furthermore, given the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the property and the parties’ reconciliation, evidence of donative intent existed.

The district court is affirmed.



J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.