Court Opinion

ID: 9606853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:53:19.427752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:35.679187
License: Public Domain

FROEB, Judge
(concurring specially):
The majority opinion correctly decides this case on grounds with which I am in substantial agreement. Because of the omnipresence of joint tenancy ownership in Arizona at this time and its often casual use as a means of “avoiding probate,” further consideration should be given to the meaning of the Becchelli case.
In a dissolution proceeding, the court will award separate property to its owner and divide community property in a manner that is “just and fair.” The Becchelli case holds that real property held in joint tenancy ownership by the spouses cannot be divided between the parties in a manner that is “just and fair.” It must be divided (or sold and proceeds allotted) according to the separate estate or interest of each spouse. In my opinion, this does not mean that the property or its proceeds must be divided equally. The court may make an unequal division where it finds the facts demonstrate unequal contributions and the absence of a gift from one spouse to the other. Which is to say that the deed and thus the form of holding title in joint tenancy is not necessarily conclusive as to how great a portion each party owns when the issue is raised in either a dissolution or partition action.
Grantees under a joint tenancy deed are presumed to own equal shares, but the presumption may be rebutted by parole evidence. Duston v. Duston, 31 Colo.App. 147, 498 P.2d 1174 (1972). It is presumed that a spouse who supplies the entire consideration for the acquisition of jointly held real property has made a gift of an undivided one-half thereof to the other spouse. Palmer v. Protrka, 257 Or. 23, 476 P.2d 185 (1970) (where the wife supplied the consideration); Becchelli v. Becchelli, supra (where the husband supplied the consideration). See Annot., 43 A.L.R.2d 917 (1955).
In the present case the joint tenancy real property was paid for almost entirely by Ruth Batesole from her separate property. The trial court ordered that it be sold and the net proceeds be divided equally. While there are no express findings either upholding or rejecting a gift from Mrs. Bate-sole to Mr. Batesole, we note that there is evidence on both sides of the issue. It will be assumed, in the absence of specific find*87ings, that the trial court made every factual determination necessary to support its judgment. Silva v. De Mund, 81 Ariz. 47, 299 P.2d 638 (1956). Therefore, I would hold the record supports the presumed determination by the trial court that the evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumption of a gift. As we have repeatedly stated, it is the function of the trial court, not the appellate court, to weigh the evidence. Thus an equal division of the jointly held property in this case should be upheld and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.