Cunningham v. Hastings
1990 WL 89066, 556 N.E.2d 12, 1990 Ind. App. LEXIS 764 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a partition action involving property held in a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, the proceeds from the sale of the property must be divided equally among the tenants, regardless of which tenant contributed the funds for the initial purchase.
Facts:
- On August 30, 1984, Joan L. Cunningham and Warren R. Hastings, an unmarried couple, acquired real estate through a warranty deed.
- The deed, prepared at Hastings' direction, specified that they held the property 'as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, and NOT as tenants in common.'
- Hastings paid the entire $45,000 purchase price for the property from his own funds.
- Cunningham and Hastings occupied the property jointly until their relationship ended.
- After the relationship ended, Hastings took sole possession of the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Cunningham filed a complaint against Hastings in the trial court, seeking a partition of the real estate.
- Hastings filed a counterclaim alleging an oral agreement that Cunningham would return the property if they separated; the counterclaim did not request reimbursement for the purchase price.
- The trial court found that the parties were joint tenants and, because the property could not be physically divided, ordered it to be sold.
- The trial court ordered that from the sale proceeds, $45,000 be paid to Hastings to refund his purchase price, with the remainder to be split equally.
- The trial court implicitly found against Hastings on his counterclaim.
- Cunningham (appellant) appeals the trial court's judgment awarding the first $45,000 to Hastings (appellee) to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
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, does the creation of a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship entitle each tenant to an equal share of the sale proceeds, regardless of which tenant provided the funds to purchase the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, J.
Yes. The creation of a joint tenancy unequivocally entitles each party to an equal share of the proceeds upon partition, irrespective of who furnished the purchase money. The court reasoned that the deed's language explicitly established a joint tenancy, which, by its legal nature, confers equivalent, fixed, and vested rights on each tenant from the moment of its creation. Unlike a tenancy in common, where equitable adjustments for unequal contributions are permissible, a joint tenancy's core principle is the equal right of each tenant to the whole property. Therefore, the trial court erred by attempting an equitable adjustment and crediting Hastings for the purchase price, as this contradicts the fundamental characteristics of a joint tenancy.
Concurring - Ratliff, C.J.
Yes. The proceeds must be divided equally because the creation of the joint tenancy itself constituted a completed inter vivos gift. The concurring opinion agrees with the outcome but emphasizes that the act of Hastings placing the property in joint tenancy, despite paying the full purchase price, was a valid and irrevocable inter vivos gift of an undivided one-half interest to Cunningham. By making this gift, Hastings gave away half of his contribution and cannot now revoke it to recover the full purchase price. The equal division of proceeds simply honors the completed gift that formed the basis of the joint tenancy.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between joint tenancies and tenancies in common in property law, establishing a bright-line rule for the partition of jointly held property in Indiana. It clarifies that the express creation of a joint tenancy overrides equitable considerations regarding unequal financial contributions that might be relevant in a tenancy in common. The ruling emphasizes that the form of title is determinative of the parties' interests, meaning parties who wish to be reimbursed for unequal contributions must either avoid a joint tenancy or create a separate contract to that effect. This case serves as a strong precedent for prioritizing the legal structure of property ownership over subsequent equitable claims.
