Court Opinion

ID: 9917298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 21:12:54.677253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:15.398499
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
                                                                                                              Filed
                                                                                                                    lo/oE/23
                                                                                                                   Essex  mt

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT                                                                CIVIL DIVISION
Essex Unit                                                                         Case N0. 22-CV-02321
75 Courthouse Drive
                                                      f1
Guildhall VT 05905
802—676—3910
www.vermontjudiciary.org

                                        Jason Waldo V. Kaitlyn Maxwell

                        FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND JUDGMENT

        The present dispute arises from two separate claims concerning the partition of real estate and
the return of an engagement ring.

        Plaintiff Jason Waldo and Defendant Katilyn Maxwell were involved in a romantic relationship
for approximately ten years from 2010 until Ms. Maxwell’s departure in October 2020. During that

time, Mr. Waldo proposed marriage with an engagement ring, which Ms. Maxwell accepted. The

couple never consummated this engagement and remained unmarried for the duration of their
relationship.

        During this period, the couple also purchased a lakefront property with two houses located in
the Town of Brighton, Vermont. Mr. Waldo seeks permission to sell this jointly owned property and

claims that he is entitled to the bulk of the proceeds based on the fact that he is the only party that ever
contributed to the purchase, upkeeping, and improvement of the property.

        This matter came before the Court on September 26, 2023 for a bench trial. Plaintiff Jason
Waldo appeared at the trial with legal counsel. Defendant Kaitlyn Maxwell did not appear at the

hearing. Defendant was notiﬁed of the hearing by notice that the Court issued on August 2, 2023.
Defendant was also made aware that the Court intended to set this matter for a bench trial at the

parties’ last pre-trial conference on July 28, 2023. Plaintiff represented that he texted Ms. Maxwell at
the start of the trial but received no response. To date, Defendant Maxwell has not ﬁled anything with

the Court that would seek to explain or excuse her absence from the trial. Ms. Maxwell has also not

submitted any exhibits or testimony in this matter.

        Based on the testimony and exhibits submitted at trial, the Court makes the following ﬁndings
and conclusions for each of Plaintiff’s claims.

Order                                                                                   Page 1 of 7
22—CV—02321 Jason Waldo v. Kaitlyn Maxwell
    1. Engagement Ring

          The evidence shows that Plaintiff gave Defendant an engagement ring as a conditional gift
based on the promise of marriage in 2016 when the couple became engaged. The Court finds that the
entire purpose of this ring was a gift given in the promise of marriage. When that marriage did not
occur and the parties broke-up their relationship, the purpose and condition of the gift was thwarted
and gives rise to a claim to return the ring.

          Courts have long recognized a cause of action to recover gifts made in contemplation of
marriage. While Vermont has abolished causes of action for breach of contract to marry, seduction,
and the like. 15 V.S.A. § 1001, the General Assembly has preserved a cause of action “for the recovery
of a chattel, the return of money, or the value thereof at the time of the transfer ... where the sole
consideration for the transfer of the chattel, money or securities ... was a contemplated marriage.” Id. §
1002. In Vermont, as elsewhere, courts have treated this cause of action as a species of enforcement of
a conditional gift. See, e.g., Williamson v. Johnson, 62 Vt. 378, 384-85 (1890); Annotation, Rights in
Respect of Engagement and Courtship Presents When Marriage Does Not Ensue, 44 A.L.R.5th 1, § 3;
Comment, “But I Can't Marry You”: Who Is Entitled to the Engagement Ring When the Conditional
Performance Falls Short of the Altar?, 17 J. AM. ACAD. MATRIMONIAL LAW. 419, 421-22 (2001); see
also Fullerton v. Amblo, 2004 WL 5460797 (Dec. 22, 2004) (Norton, J.).

          Several courts have upheld a presumption that engagement rings are conditional on the
marriage occurring and the donee must return the ring where the parties terminate the engagement.
See, e.g., Fierro v. Hoel, 465 N.W.2d 669, 671 (Iowa 1990); Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 631, 634
(Kan. 1997). The special recognition for gifts given in contemplation of marriage have invited
criticism in legal academia. One commentator has noted that the rule does not comport with modern
expectations of engagements and is applied in a sexist manner, because the prospective bride cannot
typically recover expenses that she incurs in preparing for the wedding as she does not “transfer” these
expenses to the prospective groom. See Note, Rules of Engagement, 107 Yale L.J. 2583, 2600-14
(1998).

          Notwithstanding this criticism, 15 V.S.A. § 1002 remains the law of Vermont, and the case law
supporting the return of a conditional gift, such as an engagement ring remains the binding precedent
for this Court to apply.

Order                                                                                   Page 2 of 7
22-CV-02321 Jason Waldo v. Kaitlyn Maxwell
        In this case, Plaintiff testified that he purchased the engagement ring for $10,400. Plaintiff also
testified that he had the ring appraised shortly after its purchase, and the value had grown to $19,000.
Plaintiff did not submit evidence of this appraisal, and the Court does not find it to be a credible value
on which to base an award. In light of the facts of their break-up, Plaintiff seeks the return of this gift,
which he is entitled to do. 23 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 62:28 (4th ed. 2023 update) (“An
engagement ring is a conditional gift presented in contemplation of marriage and if that condition
(marriage) is not met, the donor is entitled to the ring.”).

        Based on this, the Court orders Defendant to return the engagement ring to Defendant within 30
days following service of this decision on Defendant. If the ring is no longer in Defendant’s
possession, Plaintiff shall be entitled to a monetary judgment in the amount of $10,400 from
Defendant.

    2. Partition of Real Estate at201 and 211 Cottage Road

        In January 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant purchased a lakefront property in Brighton, Vermont
with two houses. The buildings on the property, known as 201 and 211 Cottage Road, were seasonal
camps, and over the next three years, Plaintiff renovated these camps into full-season houses, installing
new retaining walls, building new decks, gutting much of the interior of the buildings, as well as
decorating and furnishing them. Although the properties were in the names of both Mr. Waldo and
Ms. Maxwell, the credible evidence at trial demonstrated that Mr. Waldo was the sole contributor to
the financial costs of the purchase price, the renovations, and the on-going carrying costs. Mr. Waldo
testified that any and all sweat equity came solely from him. Ms. Maxwell did not contribute any
money or work to the property. Notwithstanding this one-sided contribution, the evidence is that both
parties equally enjoyed and used the property up and until the end of their relationship, after which
neither used the property extensively. The evidence shows that this property was purchased,
maintained, and renovated by Plaintiff for the mutual benefit of both parties as part of their then-
romantic relationship, and that the joint title reflected the parties plans to form a long-term relationship
and eventually, marriage. The end of this relationship has effectively ended the parties’ ability to
jointly own the property and has led to the present partition action.

        Mr. Waldo seeks the right to sell the property and to recover his investment in the property in
the form of the money that he used to purchase the property, to renovate the property, and to carry the
property. Only after these expenses and costs are reimbursed, which, in turn, will only be reimbursed

Order                                                                                   Page 3 of 7
22-CV-02321 Jason Waldo v. Kaitlyn Maxwell
after the mortgage and other outstanding bills associated with the property are paid, does Mr. Waldo
believe that Ms. Maxwell should share in any additional equity realized from the sale of the property.

         Based on the testimony and evidence, The Court generally agrees with Plaintiff, but it makes
the following findings and calculations concerning contributions to the property as follows.

         First, the HUD closing statement indicates that Plaintiff contributed $44,556.03 to the closing
along with an initial deposit on the property of $5,000, which comes out to a total purchase price
contribution of $49,556.03.

         Second, Plaintiff testified that he has made all mortgage payments up and until July 2023.
Given that the purchase occurred in January 2016, the Court finds that mortgage payments would have
started in February 2016 and continued each month until June 2023 when Plaintiff admits that he
stopped payments for lack of resources. The Court calculates these contributions to be 89 months of
payments at a monthly mortgage rate of $1,689.29. This makes Plaintiff’s total mortgage payment
contribution to be $150,346.81. 1

         Third Plaintiff presented evidence and testimony of the following expenses, which Plaintiff has
paid to maintain and preserve the property since 2016: (1) electricity for 201 Cottage Road (daily rate
of $4.53 x 2815 days) $12,751.95; (2) electricity for 211 Cottage Road (daily rate of $5.29 x 2815
days) $14,891.35; (3) water for 201 and 211 Cottage Road (based on $100 per quarter rate per building
for 32 quarters) $6,400; (4) cable for 201 Cottage Road ($160.24 per month for 85 months)
$13,620.40; (5) cable for 211 Cottage Road ($195.89 per month for 61 months) $11,949.29;2 (6) oil for
both properties $8,395.78; (7) propane for both properties $9,029.22; (8) trash removal for both
properties ($46.84 per month for 92 months) $4,309.28; (9) plowing for both properties ($750 per
season for 8 seasons) $6,000; (10) lawn care for both properties ($500 per season for 8 seasons)
$4,000; (11) dock services for both properties ($400 per season for 8 seasons) $3,200. These total to
$97,547.27.

         Fourth, Plaintiff presented extensive testimony of the cost of the renovations that he made to
the property. Wynkoop v. Stratthaus, 2016 VT 5, ¶¶ 28–29 (a co-tenant may be compensated for
discretionary improvements made to a property, including actual costs and sweat equity). These

1 Plaintiff testified that these monthly payments included principal, interest, taxes, and insurance.

2 Plaintiff testified that the cable service was necessary for the property’s security system and had to be maintained year-

round for both houses.

Order                                                                                                   Page 4 of 7
22-CV-02321 Jason Waldo v. Kaitlyn Maxwell
included the following: (1) general renovation work $57,348.84; (2) Labor costs (Plaintiff plus four
hired laborers) $25,000; (3) new foundation $4,500; (4) rock retaining wall $10,000. These total to
$96,848.84. In this case, Plaintiff is entitled to direct compensation because the improvements were
done by the agreement and consent of both parties and intended not necessarily to improve the fair
market value of the property but to increase the comfort, use, and enjoyment of the property. The
evidence indicates that the work done by Plaintiff will significantly increase the re-sale value, but there
was no objection by Defendant or evidence that would suggest that the costs of these improvements
exceed the increase in value or that the costs of the improvements, which Plaintiff admits are a partial
accounting, are unfair to credit to him. Taking the circumstances in totality, the Court finds that these
amounts are fair to award to Plaintiff for the work and improvements that he made with Defendant’s
consent, and which have improved the quality, if not the value, of the property.

        Looking at the proposed contributions more broadly, the Court finds that these costs are
reasonably related to the initial acquisition, the on-going maintenance, and reasonable upgrade of the
property. The Court further finds that Plaintiff bore these costs and expenses alone and received no
contributions from Defendant, and he is entitled to compensation for these expenses from any proceeds
resulting from the sale of the property. Against these expenses, the Court must deduct ($19,950) for
the net rental income that Plaintiff exclusively collected for renting the property. This leads to the
following overall calculation $49,556.03 (purchase costs) + $150,346.81 (mortgage payments) +
$97,547.27 (maintenance costs) + $96,848.84 (renovation costs) – ($19.950) (net rental income) =
$374,348.95. Begin v. Benoit, 2006 VT 130, ¶ 6 (noting that partitions are equitable in nature and that
the Court “should consider all relevant circumstances to ensure that complete justice is done.”)
(quoting Wilk v. Wilk, 173 Vt. 343, 346 (2002)); Wynkoop, 2016 VT 5, ¶ 30 (noting that the Court must
concrete mathematical calculations regarding contributions and monetary awards) (citing Massey v.
Hrostek, 2009 VT 70, ¶ 26).

        In addition to this amount, Plaintiff is entitled to $7,000 that he expended to purchase new
furniture after Defendant removed all of the furniture from the 201 and 211 Cottage Road properties.
Plaintiff testified, and the Court finds credible, that the furniture was purchased by him and belonged
to him. Defendant removed the furniture in 2020 when she ended the relationship, and Plaintiff
purchased lower quality and lower price furniture to replace the missing pieces. Plaintiff has requested
the return of these items, but Defendant has refused. While Plaintiff would like to sell the furniture
with the house, the Court has, after additional deliberation on this question, determined that Plaintiff is
entitled to compensation for these items in whole as they represent the reasonable replacement costs
Order                                                                                  Page 5 of 7
22-CV-02321 Jason Waldo v. Kaitlyn Maxwell
for items that Defendant removed without right or license. The Court awards the $7,000 amount
outright to Plaintiff.

        Under the law of partition, the parties here are entitled to the relief sought. 12 V.S.A. § 5161.
The evidence is that the property, despite having two buildings, cannot be subdivided, and neither
party seeks to retain the property by purchasing out the other’s interest. In such cases, a sale of the
property is appropriate. 12 V.S.A. § 5175. In this case, the Plaintiff has managed the property for
most, if not all, of the parties’ ownership. Plaintiff has an interest in maximizing the value of the
property to maximize his recovery. Plaintiff has proposed a one-year license to list the property with a
professional real estate broker for sale. The Court Grants this request and Grants Plaintiff’s request
that he be granted the exclusive right to hire the real estate broker, direct the broker’s listing,
marketing, and pricing of the property. Plaintiff shall also have the power to accept or refuse any offer
for the property on behalf of the parties. Defendant shall be entitled to request, and Plaintiff shall
share, reasonable periodic updates on the progress of the sale with Defendant.

        In accord with 12 V.S.A. § 5177, proceeds from the sale of the property shall be applied as
follows: (1) at closing all notes and mortgages, water bills, municipal assessments, outstanding utility
bills, and any other invoice associated with the property shall be paid in full. (2) the remainder of the
funds shall be deposited in Plaintiff’s counsel’s client trust account. (3) Plaintiff shall submit a
proposed distribution of these funds to the Court for approval. Distribution shall consist of the
following priorities. The Parties shall be entitled to recover: (A) any and all money contributed to the
purchase of the property; (B) any and all costs incurred by either party in carrying the property
between the date of this judgment and closing; (C) any and all money contributed to on-going
maintenance of the property from the initial date of purchase, including but not limited to mortgage
payments, utilities, heating, and maintenance of the property (minus any net profit realized from the
property); (D) any and all contributions made by either party to any renovations and improvements to
the property; (E) any unpaid amounts owed to a party in conjunction with this decision (i.e., the value
of an unreturned engagement ring or the award for the replacement furniture); and (F) Court costs to
Plaintiff. The decision shall also report on any remaining proceeds after these distributions, which
shall be divided equally between the parties. See Albanese v. Conduit, 141 Vt. 651, 654 (1982)
(assignment of proceeds rests with the discretion of the trial court based on the parties’ evidence).

Order                                                                                    Page 6 of 7
22-CV-02321 Jason Waldo v. Kaitlyn Maxwell
        Following an opportunity for response by Defendant,3 the Court shall issue a final order
approving and ordering the distribution of funds. Plaintiff’s counsel shall issue the funds in accord
with this final order.

                                                       ORDER

        Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Jason Waldo against
Defendant Kaitlyn Maxwell. It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant Maxwell shall return
the engagement given to her by Plaintiff Waldo within 30 days following the issuance of this Order. If
the ring is not available or returned within this time, Defendant shall be liable to Plaintiff for the value
of the ring in the amount of $10,400. Defendant Maxwell shall also re-pay Plaintiff Waldo
compensation in the amount of $7,000 for the purchase of replacement furniture that Defendant
removed from the property without permission or ownership.

        Plaintiff is further authorized and directed to list and sell the property as directed in this Order
for a period not to exceed one year. Upon the sale of the property, Plaintiff shall apply the proceeds to
any outstanding obligations associated with the property and its sale, including, but not limited to, the
note and mortgage, any unpaid utilities and maintenance costs, and any closing costs—such as
commissions, legal costs, and other fees. The remaining proceeds shall be deposited in Plaintiff’s
counsel’s client trust account, and Plaintiff shall prepare and submit a proposed distribution order
consistent as described above. Within this distribution, Plaintiff is entitled to claim $374,348.95 in
contributions made in purchasing, maintaining, and reasonably improving the property from January
2016 through the date of this decision. This amount and the other amounts allowed shall be deducted
from any proceeds recovered from the sale of the property.

So Ordered.

Electronically signed on 10/1/2023 5:49 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________________
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge

3 Such response shall be limited solely to whether the proposed distribution conforms to the findings and conclusions of

the Court in this order and whether any post-decision expenses are or are not reasonably related to the property and the
sale.

Order                                                                                             Page 7 of 7
22-CV-02321 Jason Waldo v. Kaitlyn Maxwell