Barber v. Bradley

505 S.W.3d 749 (2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Albert (H) and Elizabeth (W) were married in August 2004. At the time of their wedding, H, 35, and W, 34, were both practicing attorneys. After their wedding, the couple and W's daughter from a prior relationship moved into H's residence. They decided to buy a new house, but ultimately opted to build so as to tailor the design of a new home to fit their needs. Those needs included accommodating W's partial disability due to injuries sustained in a 2002 snowmobile accident. H's parents decided to give their son money to enable him to build a larger home, but still have mortgage payments equivalent to what the younger couple could afford given their combined income. H received $100,000 from his father and $146,000 from his mother to finance the construction of the new home. The funds were given to H in the form of checks, each made out to H individually. On the memo line of their respective checks, H's parents indicated that the funds were gifts or advancements on H's inheritance. The checks were deposited by H into a personal bank account, to which W did not have access. H would later use those separate funds to pay the home builder. W expressed concern to H that she wanted to make sure that the home would be 'half hers.' She did not want to use the money from H's parents, preferring to build a smaller house with their own funds. W told H she would not live in a house that was not 'half hers.' H reassured her that her name would be listed on the deed and that the house would be half hers. The new house was deeded jointly with the right of survivorship. The construction of the new marital residence was completed in 2008, with a total cost of $547,000. The couple obtained a first and second mortgage to finance the new home. H's and W's names were each listed on the mortgages. According to W, H agreed the house would be 'half hers' in order to secure her agreement to go forward with construction and live in the house. In May 2010, W filed a petition to dissolve the marriage. The parties stipulated that based on the most recent appraisal the value of the house was $480,000, a significant reduction from the total construction cost of $547,000. Additionally, after deducting the outstanding first and second mortgages, the total equity in the home was approximately $140,000. H claimed that the $246,000 that he received from his parents to help pay for the marital residence was a gift made exclusively to him and therefore nonmarital property. H claimed he was entitled to the return of the $246,000 prior to the division of the marital portion of the property. H’s parents testified that their money was a gift to H alone. W claimed that the residence was marital property and the equity should be divided equally. H denied ever assuring W of her co-ownership of the residence. The trial court believed W's testimony and also that H's claims were contradicted by Bradley's name appearing with his on the deed. It held that H and W were each entitled to one-half of the home's equity. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court as to the residence, although it stated its conclusion differently. The appellate court held that H 'gifted the $247,000 to W or otherwise merged it with the marital estate.' H appealed.