Harper v. Harper
448 A.2d 916, 294 Md. 54, 1982 Md. LEXIS 286 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When property is acquired through expenditures of both nonmarital and marital funds, the property is characterized as part nonmarital and part marital under the 'source of funds' theory, with the term 'acquired' referring to the ongoing process of making payments, not merely the inception of legal title.
Facts:
- In 1950, Sylvester E. Harper (husband), then unmarried, purchased an unimproved parcel of real property using a land installment contract requiring monthly payments.
- Before his marriage, the husband made all required payments that came due on the land contract.
- On November 3, 1951, Sylvester E. Harper married Amaryllis M. Harper (wife).
- During their marriage, the husband continued to make all payments on the land contract until it was fully paid.
- In 1967, the husband personally built a house, costing approximately $21,600, upon the real property, which the parties used as their marital residence.
- Although Amaryllis M. Harper's name appeared on the mortgage for the marital residence and she was legally obligated, Sylvester E. Harper made all mortgage payments and covered all expenses for the upkeep and repair of the residence.
- At all times, the property (lot and residence) was titled solely in Sylvester E. Harper’s name.
- Amaryllis M. Harper claimed that a substantial part of the payment on a previous house, jointly owned by the parties, was provided by her mother, and the proceeds from its sale were used to finance the construction of the 1967 marital residence.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 14, 1980, Amaryllis M. Harper (wife) filed a bill of complaint for an absolute divorce in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (trial court), requesting a determination of property ownership and an equitable division of proceeds from a sale.
- On November 10, 1980, the Circuit Court entered a decree granting the wife an absolute divorce, declared the real property (lot with marital residence) to be marital property, and ordered a sale in lieu of partition with each party receiving one-half of the proceeds.
- Sylvester E. Harper (husband) appealed the Circuit Court's judgment to the Court of Special Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that the real property and marital residence were marital property (though based on different reasoning), but found error in the order for sale in lieu of partition, vacating that part of the judgment and remanding the case for an equitable monetary award under statutory guidelines.
- The husband filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Court of Appeals of Maryland (highest court) granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does real property, purchased under an installment contract and paid for in part before marriage and in part during marriage, and a marital residence constructed on that property during marriage, constitute entirely marital property, or should its characterization be based on the source of the funds contributed to its acquisition?
Opinions:
Majority - Davidson, J.
No, the property is not entirely marital property. The Court concluded that under the Maryland Act, the appropriate analysis to determine whether property acquired with both premarital and marital funds is marital property is the 'source of funds' theory, rejecting both the 'inception of title' and 'transmutation' theories. The Court recognized the broad remedial purpose of the Act to protect spouses making nonmonetary contributions and to fairly and equitably adjust property interests upon divorce, moving away from a strict title-based system. The Court found that property is 'acquired' through an ongoing process of making payments, not solely at the point legal title is created. Therefore, when property is acquired by an expenditure of both nonmarital and marital property, it is characterized as part nonmarital and part marital. A spouse contributing nonmarital property is entitled to an interest proportionate to that investment, and the remaining portion is marital property subject to equitable distribution. This approach aligns with the statutory language that considers property 'however titled' and allows for consideration of all contributions in an equitable distribution.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant in Maryland family law as it definitively established the 'source of funds' theory for characterizing property acquired using both premarital and marital resources, departing from the traditional 'inception of title' rule. By redefining 'acquired' as an ongoing process of payment, the decision ensures a more equitable distribution for spouses, particularly those who contribute non-monetarily to a marriage. This ruling prevents a spouse from claiming sole ownership of property by virtue of premarital title, while also safeguarding the nonmarital investment of the other spouse, promoting a fair and proportionate return on all contributions.
