Opinion ID: 2159829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Presumption of Equal Ownership Between Tenants in Common

Text: [¶ 5] According to Lufkin, the court erred in awarding Palanza more than half of the property value because there is no evidence in the record to rebut the presumption that they owned equal shares of the property. Palanza contends that the evidence of her investment in the repair and maintenance of the home overcomes the presumption that she was limited to 50% of the property value. She also contends that Lufkin failed to offer evidence regarding the amount of his initial investment in the property. [2] [¶ 6] Tenants in common ... are presumed to own equal shares, but this presumption may be overcome by evidence, such as evidence of unequal initial contributions, establishing an intention to have unequal shares. Bradford v. Dumond, 675 A.2d 957, 961 (Me.1996). [¶ 7] In the present case, the court did find that the parties had equal shares. The award is lopsided not because the court concluded that Palanza purchased more than a one-half interest in the property, but because the court offset Palanza's expenses for repairs and taxes.