Partition.. Discretion to depart from equal shares

Currie v. Jané, 2014 VT 106 (05-Sep-2014)

ROBINSON, J. Plaintiff challenges a partition order reflecting the trial court’s conclusion that defendant had an 81.7% interest in the home that plaintiff and defendant purchased together, and applying various setoffs for contributions to the maintenance of the home after the parties purchased it. We affirm.

Plaintiff suggests that where the deed titles property to joint tenants with rights of survivorship, the presumption of equal ownership interests is conclusive. We disagree. The presumption reflected in 27 V.S.A. § 2(b)(2)(A) is an evidentiary presumption, subject to rebuttal. See, e.g., Whippie, 2010 VT 32, ¶ 14 We conclude that the trial court’s finding that the parties intended to own the property in a 81.7% to 18.3% proportion was amply supported by its findings and the underlying evidence.

Plaintiff next argues that the trial court’s requirement that plaintiff pay defendant $158,144 to buy out his interest is clearly erroneous and inequitable. We review the trial court’s assessment of equitable remedies, like partition, for abuse of discretion, and will uphold the trial court’s judgment unless the trial court has withheld its discretion entirely or exercised it “for clearly untenable reasons or to a clearly untenable extent.” Given the extensive debt and additional expenses built up by the parties in connection with, or attached to, the property, it is no surprise that plaintiff would have to pay more than the value of the property to satisfy her debt to defendant and keep the property. The trial court here considered the appropriate factors, exercising discretion in applying them. Whippie, 2010 VT 32, ¶ 15