Opinion ID: 1403137
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Luglena and Churchill Properties

Text: ¶ 11 The wife argues she did not intend to make a gift to the husband of a joint interest in her separate real property (in Churchill and Luglena), which she had inherited from her mother. According to the wife, she included the husband's name upon the deeds as a joint tenant for the sole purpose of refinancing the mortgage loans on both properties in an effort to secure a lower interest rate and reduced monthly payments. [12] The husband benefitted financially by the refinancing process, the wife urges, because joint funds were used to pay current household bills (including the Luglena mortgage). ¶ 12 After the family moved from Churchill to Luglena, the wife contacted the bank about refinancing the existing loans at a lower interest rate. She was then paying the Churchill mortgage with her separate funds and the Luglena mortgage with joint funds. According to the bank lending officer, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) [13] requires that title to property stand in the name of all individual borrowers if there be more than one in number. The officer advised the wife that the loans could not be made if title to both properties remained solely in her name. The lending institution prepared the deeds and mortgages, which were then signed by both spouses. By the deeds title was conveyed to them in the Luglena and Churchill properties as joint tenants. ¶ 13 Before placing title to Luglena and Churchill in the joint tenancy of the spouses, the wife talked to the lawyer for her mother's estate. The latter advised her against taking this action. According to the wife, she did not understand the legal consequences of changing the ownership regime by transferring title to her and her husband as joint tenants in the land. ¶ 14 The husband confirmed by his testimony that the wife did not tell him she was making to him a gift of her inherited real estate. He was not aware that the property was in joint tenancy or that he even had a claim of ownership in it until after his wife had commenced the divorce action. The husband first learned that he was listed on the three deeds as a joint tenant when, at the suggestion of counsel, he obtained a copy of the documents. ¶ 15 In short, where, as here, the owning spouse is unable to refinance mortgaged property because the lender requires that, in order to qualify for a loan, both spouses be record owners and sign the loan-related documents, the presumption of a gift (arising from a joint-tenancy ownership regime) is overcome. ¶ 16 We hence hold that on this record, absent any contrary proof, the transfer to the husband by a joint tenancy deed clearly was not intended to constitute a gift in praesenti  a presently effective, unconditional interspousal gift to the husband.