Opinion ID: 853228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Case Law Supports Rita's Interest

Text: The majority relies on In re Dall, 681 N.E.2d 718 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), where the court refused to include in the marital estate a couple's marital home that the wife's parents paid for and helped construct, but later refused to transfer to the couple. The Dall court held that an equitable interest in real property titled in a third-party [sic], although claimed by one or both of the divorcing parties, should not be included in the marital estate. Id. at 722. Dall declined to follow a prior case, Sovern v. Sovern, 535 N.E.2d 563 (Ind.Ct. App.1989), that included real estate titled to the parents of a married couple in the marital pot when the couple divorced. Dall, 681 N.E.2d at 721. Dall distinguished Sovern, stating that the mother in Dall refused to transfer the house to the couple, and therefore, [the couple] did not have a definite agreement that title would be transferred to them. Id. Dall held, as a result, the husband and wife did not possess the definite interest necessary for the home to be included in the marital estate. Id. In Dall, the wife's father purchased a lot for the couple, paid all the contractors and subcontractors for building materials for the house, and helped construct the home. Id. at 719. During the construction of the home, the wife's mother refused to convey the house. Id. at 720. The parents made all mortgage payments after the couple moved in. Id. In this case, James had a continuing interest in the property, John never paid the mortgage on the house, and John was willing at all times to transfer the property to James and Rita. John did not construct the house at issue. Rather, James purchased the house from a third party during his first marriage, and held the property jointly with his first wife. Unlike the Dall parents, John bought the house from James for less than full consideration with the understanding that John would sell the house back to James once James was able to get on his feet. James, and later James and Rita, continued to live in the house and carry its expenses, including mortgage payments. Finally, unlike Dall, where the mother refused to convey the house, in the present case, John was willing to deed the house to the couple whenever James was ready. All of these facts distinguish this case from Dall, and more closely resemble Sovern. The court in Sovern acknowledged the trial court's astute recognition that [b]are legal title alone does not eliminate either the property or the investment thereon from being a part of the marital estate to be considered by the Court in arriving at an equitable division. 535 N.E.2d at 565 n. 1. The son in Sovern was awarded a marital residence and an auto body shop. Id. at 567. The residence was titled in the name of his parents, and the son, as well as both sets of parents, helped with construction of the house. Id. at 564-65. Although both sets of parents contributed money and various items, most of the money to construct the home came from the son and daughter's marital resources. Id. at 565. The parents were willing at all times to deed the property to the couple. Id. The son held himself and his wife out as owners, and the house was insured in both the son and daughter's names, not the parents'. Id. Here, like Sovern, the property at issue is titled in the father's name, but the father as well as Rita and James all have contributed equity to the house. The majority points out that there is no specified date for John to transfer back to James, and neither the price nor the terms of the transfer was fixed by any documents. It seems to me that the time term was set by a condition, albeit a nebulous one, that James get back on his feet and the price was to get [John's] money out of it. [7] Here, the parties' testimony gives an even more solid footing to fill these lacunae.