Opinion ID: 2381515
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gallimore's Share.

Text: Finally, I think it necessary to advert to an issue not explicitly addressed by the majority but critical to its own resolution of the case. My colleagues hold that Ms. Washington's share of the tenancy in common which they have created passes to her estate. Presumably, Gallimore's share is what is left over. Gallimore apparently assumes that his share is a one-half share, and the trial judge treated the question as being whether Gallimore was entitled to an undivided half-interest or moiety. Washington, supra, 122 Daily Wash.L.Rptr. at 1132. Gallimore's assumption, however, is not necessarily correct. Because the purported tenancy in common in this case developed from a purported tenancy by the entireties and an actual joint tenancy, there is a presumption that each tenant is entitled to an equal share of the proceeds. Sebold v. Sebold, 143 U.S.App. D.C. 406, 414, 444 F.2d 864, 872 (1971). This presumption is subject to rebuttal, however, and does not prevent proof from being introduced that the respective holdings and interests of the parties are unequal. Id. (quoting Jezo v. Jezo, 23 Wis.2d 399, 127 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Wis.1964) ( Jezo I ), modified Jezo v. Jezo, 23 Wis.2d 399, 129 N.W.2d 195, 196-97 (Wis.1964) (per curiam) ( Jezo II )); see also Duston v. Duston, 31 Colo. App. 147, 498 P.2d 1174, 1175 (1972); Wallace v. Riley, 23 Cal.App.2d 669, 74 P.2d 800, 806 (1937); 48A C.J.S. Joint Tenancy § 22, at 357 (1981 & Supp.1994). It appears to be undisputed that when Gallimore and Ms. Washington began their relationship, he moved into her home. Ms. Washington's heirs claim that he contributed nothing at all to the payment of the mortgage. Gallimore asserts in his brief that he contributed until 1983; in his affidavit, he claims to have done so until 1984. It appears that after 1984, Ms. Washington's daughter lived in the house and paid rent of $300 per month to her mother, an amount in excess of the $232 monthly mortgage payment. In any event, Gallimore does not claim to have contributed to the mortgage for more than a decade. The determination as to whether the presumption [that joint tenants own equal shares] was overcome by the evidence is a question of fact for the trial court. Duston, supra, 498 P.2d at 1175. Because the trial judge held that Gallimore receives nothing, she found it unnecessary to resolve the factual issues regarding Gallimore's contribution. Although not necessarily controlling, evidence of unequal contributions is a factor to be considered. Sebold, supra, 143 U.S.App. D.C. at 414, 444 F.2d at 872; Jezo II, supra, 129 N.W.2d at 197. Accordingly, in my opinion, the majority's disposition requires a remand to resolve this issue. [10]