Myrland v. Myrland
1973 Ariz. App. LEXIS 576, 508 P.2d 757, 19 Ariz. App. 498 (1973)
Rule of Law:
Property acquired by a spouse prior to marriage generally retains its separate character unless transmuted into community property by clear agreement, gift, or commingling; furthermore, a partnership requires an intention of the parties, co-ownership of the business, community of interest, and community of power in administration, with contributions of labor or temporary commingling alone being insufficient to establish it.
Facts:
- In 1941, Bertha Lester (appellee), a widow, owned and operated the Rio Rita Bar, where Otto Myrland (appellant), a disbarred lawyer, began working as a bartender and supervised remodeling in 1942.
- In 1947, after the first Rio Rita Bar closed, Mrs. Lester purchased a new lot in her own name, constructed a new Rio Rita Bar, and financed it with prior earnings and a loan secured by her separate property, with Mr. Myrland assisting in its establishment.
- In 1949, Mrs. Lester purchased the Johnny's Outpost property in her own name for approximately $50,000; both parties commenced operating the bar business there.
- On July 29, 1952, after Mr. Myrland obtained a divorce from his first wife, he and Bertha Lester were married.
- Throughout their co-habitation and marriage, all properties, including the Rio Rita Bar property and Jaynes Station, remained in Bertha Lester's name, and she maintained almost total control over all bank accounts and income derived from these properties.
- The properties were subject to two condemnation actions in 1951 and 1966, with awards totaling over $60,000 plus interest, all received by Mrs. Myrland.
- From 1953 until 1969, the parties maintained themselves from rental income generated by the properties solely in Mrs. Myrland's name.
Procedural Posture:
- Bertha Myrland (appellee) filed an action for divorce, alleging no community property and seeking an order determining that all disputed real and personal property in her name was her sole and separate property.
- Otto Myrland (appellant) filed an answer and two-count counterclaim, alleging substantial community property and a partnership agreement from 1942.
- The action was tried to the court, sitting without a jury, which found that Otto Myrland failed to sustain his burden of proving a partnership agreement and that no such agreement was entered into.
- The trial court entered a judgment decreeing certain property to be Bertha Myrland's sole and separate property and awarded Otto Myrland a net amount of $937.43 (plus a Cadillac automobile) as his share of the community property.
- Otto Myrland appealed that portion of the judgment concerning the separate property and the findings regarding the partnership agreement to the Court of Appeals of Arizona.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a husband acquire an interest in his wife's pre-marital property through a purported pre-marital partnership agreement, absent explicit intent for co-ownership and shared control? 2. Does property acquired by one spouse before marriage, along with its post-marriage accretions and rental income, become community property due to the other spouse's labor, temporary commingling of funds, or co-habitation?
Opinions:
Majority - Howard, Judge
No, Mr. Myrland did not acquire an interest in Bertha Myrland's property through a pre-marital partnership agreement, nor did her pre-marital property and its accretions become community property after marriage. The trial court's findings that Mr. Myrland failed to sustain his burden of proving a partnership agreement were upheld. While an oral agreement can form a partnership, the critical indicia of intention, co-ownership, community of interest, and community of power in administration were absent. Mrs. Myrland maintained complete control over income, denied an agreement, and Mr. Myrland's role was secondary, often for wages or benefits. Mr. Myrland's own actions, such as not filing income taxes for the alleged partnership or for himself to avoid property claims by his first wife, undermined his partnership claim. Regarding community property, the basic principle is that property status is determined at the time of acquisition. Property owned before marriage is separate and retains that character (A.R.S. § 25-213) unless altered by agreement, gift, or commingling. The Rio Rita and Outpost properties were purchased by Mrs. Myrland prior to marriage. Mr. Myrland received income for his services and other benefits, and there was no evidence that his income was commingled with separate property income to cause a transmutation. The increase in value of Mrs. Myrland's separate properties due to Mr. Myrland's labor did not change their character, especially since Mrs. Myrland also devoted significant time. Furthermore, Mrs. Myrland's temporary placement of funds from her separate property into joint accounts with Mr. Myrland did not change their character to community property or constitute a gift, as her intention was controlling, and she maintained ultimate control.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the 'inception of title' rule in community property states, emphasizing that property acquired before marriage retains its separate character unless clear intent for transmutation is demonstrated through agreement, gift, or genuine commingling. It also establishes a high bar for proving an implied partnership, particularly in informal or personal relationships, highlighting the necessity of demonstrating mutual intent for co-ownership, shared interest, and joint administration. The ruling clarifies that mere contributions of labor, temporary commingling of funds, or co-habitation, without explicit intent or formal agreement, are insufficient to change property character or create a partnership interest. This case provides a critical precedent for distinguishing between employee-employer or spousal support relationships and formal business partnerships or community property interests.
