Cummings v. Anderson
614 P.2d 1283, 1980 Wash. LEXIS 1348, 94 Wash. 2d 135 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When unmarried co-tenants acquire property with the intent to own it equally but one co-tenant subsequently abandons their payment obligations, their ownership interest is not fixed at the time of acquisition but is determined by their proportional contribution to the total purchase price.
Facts:
- In September 1973, Cummings and Anderson, an unmarried couple, jointly purchased the rights to a contract for a single-family residence, taking title as tenants in common with the intent to be equal owners.
- Both parties contributed to the initial $2,500 down payment using separate funds and a loan.
- The couple married in February 1974 and lived in the house together.
- In August 1974, Anderson left the home, taking her children and most of the couple's personal property.
- After leaving, Anderson ceased making any contributions towards the monthly contract payments, taxes, or insurance.
- Cummings remained in the residence and solely made all subsequent payments required under the contract, significantly reducing the principal balance owed.
- Shortly before the final contract payment was due, Anderson offered to buy Cummings' interest for $1,000, which he rejected.
Procedural Posture:
- Anderson filed a suit for partition in the Superior Court for King County (trial court).
- The trial court found that Anderson had abandoned her interest and quieted title in Cummings.
- Anderson, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals, Division One.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the parties' interests were fixed at 50/50 from the date of acquisition and granted Cummings, as appellee, a lien for payments he made on Anderson's behalf.
- Cummings, as petitioner, sought review in the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a partition action between unmarried co-tenants, is a party's ownership interest determined by their proportional contribution to the total purchase price when that party abandons their payment obligations after the initial acquisition?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosellini, J.
Yes. In a partition action, which is an equitable proceeding, a co-tenant's ownership interest is determined by their proportional contribution to the total purchase price when they abandon their contractual payment obligations. While it is presumed that co-tenants share equally, this presumption is rebutted when it is shown they contributed unequally to the purchase price. Here, Anderson abandoned her obligations under the contract, frustrating the parties' original intent of equal ownership. It would be inequitable to allow her to benefit from Cummings' subsequent payments. Therefore, Anderson did not forfeit her entire interest, but her equity in the property is limited to a share that is proportional to her actual financial investment relative to the total investment made by both parties.
Analysis:
This decision provides an equitable framework for dividing property between unmarried co-tenants when one party ceases to contribute financially. It moves away from a rigid application of the 'time of acquisition' rule, often used in community property contexts, toward a more flexible approach based on proportional contribution. The ruling establishes that abandoning payment obligations under a purchase contract alters the initial ownership expectations. This precedent is significant for partition actions involving executory contracts, ensuring that a party who carries the financial burden alone receives the benefit of their investment while the other party retains only the equity they actually paid for.
Unlock the full brief for Cummings v. Anderson