You can certainly take the position that you are entitled to half the
equity, but the courts may not agree with you depending on a variety
of factors, including your relative contribution to the purchase of
the second home. I have provided information regarding division of
property in the case of unmarried couples, including specific cases
from Nevada. It is quite possible that the courts would look at the
total amount each of you contributed to the current house and divide
the equity accordingly.
Therefore, you might want to consider adding up the total amount each
of you contributed to the first house to determine what percentage of
the net sales proceeds each of you were entitled to, and then add up
your respective additional contributions to the second house's
mortgage. Those amounts would determine the percentage of the equity
of the second house each of you would be entitled to upon its sale.
If it is pretty close to 50/50, then your desire for half the equity
may well be upheld by the courts. However, if there is a large
discrepancy, a court may well ignore the inherent 50/50 split implied
by the jointly titled house and take this approach to dividing its
value.
Be aware that any written agreements, and even sometimes oral
agreements, will supersede either of these methods if they exist, even
if they are only implied.
Sincerely,
Wonko
"At present, a well-marked schism exists between the legal rights of
married and unmarried cohabitants. ...[C]ourts have been willing to
look behind the explicit title of the couple?s individually and
jointly held property to determine whether redistribution is necessary
to effectuate the parties? intent or to prevent unfairness."
"Nevada
Langevin v. York, 907 P.2d 981 (Nev. 1995)
During their two-year cohabitation, the parties acquired four
properties which they held as joint tenants. The properties were
purchased by the male joint tenant, and there was no evidence of an
agreement to pool assets. The Supreme Court held that unmarried joint
tenants are entitled to recover an amount in proportion to their
contribution to the acquisition of the property.
Sack v. Tomlin, 871 P.2d 298 (Nev. 1994)
Upon the dissolution of this non-marital couple?s seven-year
relationship, a dispute arose over the apportionment of the proceeds
from the sale of their house, which dispute led to an action for
partition of the real property held as tenants in common. In Hay v.
Hay (infra), the Nevada Supreme Court stated that ?[t]he courts should
enforce express contracts between nonmarital partners except to the
extent that the contract is explicitly founded on the consideration of
meretricious sexual services. [In addition,] in the absence of an
express contract, the courts should inquire into the conduct of the
parties to determine whether that conduct demonstrates an implied
contract, agreement of partnership or joint venture, or some other
tacit understanding
between the parties. The courts may also employ the doctrine of
quantum meruit, or equitable remedies such as constructive or
resulting trusts when warranted by the facts of the case.? Here, the
Supreme Court held that the doctrine of quantum meruit did not apply
because nothing in the record indicated that either party promised or
expected compensation for his or her contribution
of household services, nor was there any evidence to indicate that
whatever services were provided by one party were not reduced by
equivalent services rendered by the other.
Western States Construction, Inc. v. Michoff, 840 P.2.d 1220 (Nev. 1992)
Lois Michoff (?Lois?) and Max Michoff (?Max?) were cohabitants for approximately
nine years, but never married. When their relationship ended, Lois
brought an action seeking one half of her and Max?s assets, including
Western States Construction, Inc., which they formed during their
relationship. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Lois and
against Max and the corporation. Both appealed. The Supreme Court held
that: (1) Max was given sufficient
notice that the complaint stated cause of action for breach of express
and implied contract to acquire and hold property as though the couple
were married; (2) unmarried cohabitating adults may agree to hold
property as if they were married; (3) the evidence did not demonstrate
an express agreement, but instead, supported a finding that the
parties impliedly agreed to hold the
property as if they were married; and (4) the corporation was not
party to the contract and, therefore, could not be liable for
defendant breach.
Hay v. Hay, 678 P.2d 672 (Nev. 1984)
Female cohabitant brought an action seeking a declaration of her
interest in the property she acquired with her male partner during
their cohabitation. The lower court entered summary judgment
dismissing the complaint, and an appeal followed. The Supreme Court
held that:
(1) the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of an
implied-in-fact contract to acquire and hold property as if parties
were married or were general partners, and (2) an issue of material
fact concerning the ownership of various items of property precluded
summary judgment."
"Property Division Issues in Non-Marital Relationships" by Mary
Bonauto, Michele Granda, and Karen Loewy, GLAD
http://www.glad.org/rights/PropertyDivision.pdf |
