|
|
|
Division of Property of Cohabitating Couple - Law of Partition
© 2003 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
NORTH DAKOTA: McKechnie v. Berg, 667 N.W.2d 628 (N.D. 2003).
When the court divides property between unmarried persons, it does so under the law of partition, not the law of equitable distribution. Where unmarried cohabitants pooled their financial resources and purchased property which they themselves considered to be jointly owned, the court did not err by dividing that property equally between them.
The parties lived together for 14 years but never married. Several years into their relationship, they purchased real property and titled it in both of their names. The woman contributed the proceeds from the sale of a trailer home that had been titled in her name alone. A construction loan was taken out in both their names. Both parties' names were on the current mortgage. They maintained separate bank accounts for several years until they became engaged, at which time they opened a joint account into which they each deposited their paychecks. They never married. When the woman removed herself from the home, she filed a partition action. The trial court ordered the real property sold and the proceeds divided equitably. It awarded $18,455 in personalty to the woman and $19,603 to the man.
On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The man argued that the trial court had erroneously applied the law of equitable distribution of marital property because it allowed the woman to introduce evidence of fault during the relationship. The court disagreed. Under the guidelines regarding the equitable distribution of property, both economic and noneconomic fault are considered proper factors in dividing marital property. However, the statute which governs equitable distribution where there is a divorce, N.D. Cent. Code 14-05-24, does not apply to the breakup of an engagement or a living arrangement. During the trial, the judge did admit a limited amount of evidence offered by the woman which addressed the man's violent and abusive behavior toward her as well as evidence that he had been "cheating" on her. The court on appeal concluded that assuming that this evidence was not relevant on the issue of partition, as opposed to equitable distribution, there was still no reversible error, because no improper findings were induced by the admission of the challenged evidence.
The man also argued that by essentially awarding an equal share of the property to both parties the court had failed to consider his superior financial contributions. In a partition action, a cotenant may be granted an allowance for the value of improvements which enhance the value of the property. The parties had pooled their resources by depositing their respective wages into a joint bank account, which was used to meet their expenses and acquire their property. The claim of the man that his income far exceeded that of the woman was not supported by the evidence. Moreover, the man made substantial withdrawals for his own recreational purposes. Given these points, the trial court's roughly equal division was affirmed.
Go to: Cohabitation Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Featured Services | |
|
| The Research Center: ( Cases of Interest by Category ) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Related Information...
| |||||
 How to Hire The Right Divorce Lawyer - You must have the right lawyer to have a successful divorce! provides a road map for finding an effective lawyer and then helps you to monitor his or her performance and fees. |
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!