Opinion ID: 1057218
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevant Factors in a Partition Accounting

Text: ¶ 16. Despite the presumption of equal contribution and equal interest, Massey, 2009 VT 70, ¶ 17, 186 Vt. 211, 980 A.2d 768, when one cotenant pays more than his or her share of property-related expenses, she or he is entitled to proportionate reimbursement, or credit, from the other tenants to reflect the proportionate burden of co-ownership. Id. ¶ 21. [4] In calculating any reimbursement due, the court must account for all of the property expenses paid by each party. These include not only the mortgage payments, but also the necessary utilities, taxes and insurance, and maintenance expenses towards the home. See Massey, 2009 VT 70, ¶ 22, 186 Vt. 211, 980 A.2d 768. ¶ 17. While there is no error in the trial court's finding that plaintiff contributed to some of the property expenses during 2002, the court must determine on remandat least generallythe object and amount of such contributions, arriving at a discrete figure separate and apart from any claims for offsets. To illustrate our concern here, the court found the parties' different levels of contributions only in the broadest terms during their cotenancy and then arrived at a fractional respective financial participation that does not comport with the findings. The court noted that defendant assumed responsibility for paying the mortgage at or near the time of closing and that after about a year plaintiff stopped contributing to household costs altogether. Yet the court reduced plaintiff's half-share by three-fifths, based, in part, on the court's conclusion that she helped with expenses during two out of the five yearsa conclusion inconsistent with its own finding and plaintiff's own acknowledgment that her contributions ceased sometime during the second year. [5] ¶ 18. Not appearing in the court's analysis is an accounting of what portion of contributions plaintiff and defendant each made to taxes, insurance, utilities, repairs and the like during the first and second years while plaintiff lived in the house, or a separate accounting of defendant's contribution after the RFA and parental rights orders that prevented plaintiff from residing at the home. While the accounting need not be precise, a ball-park estimate is insufficient. It may be that the evidence was too vague, but the party with the burden of proof on a particular claim of contribution or offset must bear the risk of failing to prove the necessary financial facts. Nor should the court's evaluation of contribution claims be conflated with its consideration of offsets. Assessment of offsets cannot be evaluated by the trial court or this Court without knowing at least the general proportion of each party's contribution to maintaining and preserving the property in the first place.