Hofstad v. Christie
2010 WY 134, 2010 Wyo. LEXIS 144, 240 P. 3d 816 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When unmarried co-tenants contribute unequally to the purchase of real property, the presumption that they hold equal shares is not rebutted if either a family relationship or donative intent exists. A family relationship can be established between an unmarried couple based on long-term cohabitation and having children together.
Facts:
- Jerald Korwin Hofstad and Cathryn Anne Christie were in a relationship from 1996 to 2007, had twin boys together, and lived together for extended periods but never married.
- In 2005, while the couple was separated, Hofstad entered into a contract to purchase a home on Donegal Street.
- The couple reconciled in April 2005, after which Hofstad had the warranty deed convey the Donegal property to both 'Jerald K. Hofstad and Cathryn Anne Christie.'
- Hofstad paid the entire down payment, closing costs, and used over $124,000 from the sale of a home he previously owned alone to pay down the new mortgage.
- From May 2005 to July 2007, the couple and their children lived in the Donegal home.
- During their cohabitation in the Donegal home, Hofstad paid all mortgage payments and utilities, while Christie contributed to home improvements and served as the homemaker.
- The relationship ended permanently in July 2007, and Christie moved out of the home.
Procedural Posture:
- Cathryn Anne Christie filed a suit in a Wyoming district court (trial court) seeking partition of the home she co-owned with Jerald Korwin Hofstad.
- Following a bench trial, the district court ruled that the home should be partitioned equally and awarded Christie $70,767.40, representing one-half of the home's equity.
- Jerald Korwin Hofstad (Appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
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 the presumption that tenants in common hold equal shares in a property apply to an unmarried couple with children where one party made substantially all financial contributions, if evidence of a family relationship or donative intent is present?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, Justice.
Yes. The presumption of equal shares applies, and the property should be partitioned equally, because the party who contributed more failed to prove the absence of both a family relationship and donative intent. The general rule is that tenants in common are presumed to hold equal shares, but this can be rebutted by showing unequal contributions unless there is a family relationship or donative intent. First, the court found that a 'family relationship' existed between Hofstad and Christie. Despite not being married, their long-term cohabitation and, most importantly, their shared twin sons, bound them 'inextricably and forever, resulting in a family relationship.' Second, the court found clear evidence of Hofstad's 'donative intent.' After the couple reconciled, Hofstad promised Christie she would be an 'equal owner' and then placed her name on the deed, which the court viewed as persuasive evidence of his intent to gift her a one-half interest in the property.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for expanding the definition of a 'family relationship' in Wyoming property law to include unmarried cohabitants with children. It signals a move away from mechanistic property rules towards a more intent-based inquiry in disputes between domestic partners. The ruling makes it more difficult for a partner who makes greater financial contributions to rebut the presumption of an equal-share gift when property is titled in both partners' names. Future cases involving property disputes between unmarried couples will likely focus heavily on the specific facts evidencing the parties' relationship and intent, rather than solely on financial contributions.
Unlock the full brief for Hofstad v. Christie