Lois E. DeAngelis v. Joseph A DeAngelis, Jr., and Cynthia L. DeAngelis
C.A. No. 11646-MA
| Del. Ch. | May 16, 2017Background
- In March 2006 Joseph Sr., his wife Lois, and Joseph Jr. and his wife Cynthia purchased 129 Naomi Drive, DE; the recorded deed recited: Joseph Sr. and Lois as to an undivided 50% as tenants by the entirety, and Joseph Jr. and Cynthia as to an undivided 50% as tenants by the entirety. Mortgages and the HUD statement listed all four as borrowers.
- Joseph Sr. had executed a 2001 will giving Lois a lifetime right to reside at another property (Sea Isle) with conditions; he died January 17, 2012. In a 2001 ante-nuptial modification, the parties agreed their wills controlled certain testamentary rights.
- Respondents (Joseph Jr. and Cynthia) produced a typewritten 2006 “Letter of Intent” allegedly from Joseph Sr. stating proceeds from Sea Isle should be used to satisfy Naomi Drive mortgage and indicating the Naomi Drive property should be treated like the Sea Isle property; the letter was unsigned by witnesses and not notarized.
- After Joseph Sr.’s death Lois filed an Affidavit of Jointly Held Real Property asserting sole ownership of an undivided 50% interest; she continued living at Naomi Drive until May 2015 when she moved to a New Jersey assisted living facility. Respondents secretly recorded a post-death conversation in which they told Lois she could live there until she died or moved.
- Respondents sought a resulting trust (claiming Joseph Sr. supplied purchase funds and intended to retain beneficial title) and argued Lois only had a life estate that terminated when she moved out of state. Lois sought partition of the property as owner of an undivided 50% interest.
- The Master treated cross-motions as a submission on the record under Ct. Ch. R. 56(h) and concluded Respondents failed to rebut the presumption of an interspousal gift; recommended partition and dismissal of the resulting-trust counterclaim. Petitioner died April 24, 2017; substitution to follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lois) | Defendant's Argument (Joseph Jr./Cynthia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lois owns an undivided 50% interest (entitlement to partition) | Deed shows tenancy by the entirety; recorded title controls; any spouse-funded contribution is an interspousal gift | Title was nominal; Joseph Sr. supplied purchase funds and never intended to give ownership — at most a life estate | Court: Deed and parties’ shared mortgage liability support presumption of gift; Respondents failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence; partition allowed |
| Whether a resulting trust should be imposed in favor of Joseph Jr. and Todd | N/A (plaintiff opposes) | Joseph Sr. supplied purchase money and intended to retain beneficial ownership; resulting trust prevents unjust enrichment | Court: No resulting trust — insufficient clear and convincing evidence to rebut familial gift presumption |
| Effect and evidentiary weight of the 2006 Letter of Intent and post-death recording | N/A | 2006 letter shows intent to treat Naomi Drive like Sea Isle and to allocate proceeds; recorded conversation shows Lois acknowledged only a life estate | Court: 2006 letter not testamentary (lacked attesting witnesses), limited in term (while mortgage existed), and no later agreement; recording ambiguous and not dispositive; insufficient to overcome gift presumption |
| Applicability of laches/equitable estoppel to bar Lois’s claim | Lois recorded an affidavit in Register of Wills and publicly asserted ownership; Respondents had notice; laches applies to bar their late challenge | Respondents lacked actual notice of affidavit and reasonably relied on letter and will; they only learned of partition when sued | Court: Did not adopt Respondents’ laches defense; recommended dismissal of counterclaim and allowed partition (laches not a barrier to Lois’s partition claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudak v. Procek, 806 A.2d 140 (Del. 2002) (familial purchase-money cases create a presumption of gift by parent or spouse, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence)
- Hanby v. Hanby, 245 A.2d 428 (Del. 1968) (parties’ assumption of mortgage liability can constitute consideration supporting a gift rather than retention of beneficial title)