Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W were married in 1966. W was a registered nurse and H was attending college and graduated in 1968. Early in the spring of 1969, H had a conversation with his father, Earl, in which H asked his father if he and W could build their home on the Johnson Road property. Earl agreed. Alice also consented. H and W had saved $4,000. They borrowed $18,000 from the local bank as a construction loan and told the president of the bank that when they completed the home that the land would be theirs and a regular mortgage would be placed on the property for purposes of security. The note was renewed on a yearly basis, and monthly payments reduced the debt to $15,000. The construction work was done mainly by H with substantial help from friends and family including Earl, Alice and W's father. W sanded and finished woodwork and cabinets. After the home was occupied, additional improvements in the amount of $5,000 were made. These included carpeting, drapes, kitchen cabinets, linoleum and paint. All of the parties knew that the house was H and W’s home and treated it as such. The one connection Earl and Alice had with the house was that it was included on the farm tax bill since the lot was not subdivided. Earl and Alice paid the real estate tax bill. In exchange for that payment, H worked additional time for his parents on their farm. Marital discord arose in 1977 and H moved to his parents' home where he resided at the time of the hearing. W filed for divorce against H and also sued H’s parents to establish her rights in certain property owned by them, known as the Johnson Road property. There were sharp differences in trial testimony on whether H’s parents had given the property the house was on to H and W. The court found W had proved grounds for dissolution without contest by H. W alleged an interest in the real estate owned by H’s parents, Earl and Alice. The judgment further determined that H and W each had a one-half interest in the house constructed on the land owned by Earl and Alice and known as the Johnson Road property. The court valued the house and improvements at $71,000 and determined that there was a construction loan for the house amounting to $15,000 and that the value of the lot upon which the house was constructed was $12,000. The court gave Earl and Alice the options on how to dispose of the property. The first method was that the house and lot be sold, sale expenses be paid, the construction loan be paid, then Earl and Alice be paid the value of the land, and the remaining sale proceeds be divided between H and W. Alternatively, the judgment provided that if Earl and Alice do not elect to have the house and lot sold then they are to pay W $28,000 representing her one-half interest in the house, and pay the bank $7,500 representing one-half of the amount due on the construction loan and, further, H was required to hold W harmless and indemnify her as to any liability on the other $7,500 due on that loan. This alternative also provided that W would have a lien on Hs one-half interest in the house in the amount he was required to pay her for child-support arrearages, attorney's fees and one-half of the teacher's retirement fund. Upon receipt of the above-described funds, W was to quitclaim her interest in the property to Earl and Alice. They, however, rejected both alternatives. All of the parties then took this appeal.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co