Patrick A. Burrow v. Rachel L. Burron
100 A.3d 1104
| Me. | 2014Background
- Rachel purchased a Maine house in 2003 from her grandmother for $75,000, with the grandmother retaining a life estate; Rachel paid the grandmother directly on a mortgage and later moved into the house with Patrick and their child.
- Rachel’s grandmother died in 2004; Rachel received about $30,000 from her mother after the estate distribution and used some funds over time to improve the property (partly after a 2007 $75,000 bank loan and a 2011 $100,000 loan).
- Rachel and Patrick married in 2007; in 2011 Rachel deeded the property to both of them as joint tenants; parties stipulated the 2011 appraisal value at divorce was $310,000 with $95,000 remaining mortgage (equity $215,000).
- Patrick filed for divorce in 2012; all issues except real property were resolved; trial in 2013 addressed disposition of the marital home.
- The court initially referenced tracing/source-of-funds concepts, then issued a revised judgment allocating $75,000 of the $215,000 equity as family gifts to Rachel and dividing the remainder, awarding Patrick $77,500 and Rachel $137,500; Patrick appealed.
- On appeal the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found no legal error in treating the property as marital but concluded the trial court’s factual finding assigning $75,000 to family gifts lacked evidentiary support and vacated the judgment for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erroneously applied the obsolete “source of funds” tracing rule to jointly held property | Patrick: court reverted to tracing, effectively setting apart nonmarital interest and reducing his share | Rachel: property was deeded into joint tenancy and should be treated as marital; court properly considered contributions when dividing | Court: initially referenced tracing but treated property as entirely marital; considering traceable contributions is permissible when distributing marital property under §953(1) |
| Whether the property was marital vs. nonmarital | Patrick: portions attributable to Rachel’s pre-marital purchases/gifts should be nonmarital | Rachel: deed into joint tenancy and subsequent joint improvements render property marital | Court: property is marital; presumption from deed into joint tenancy not rebutted |
| Whether the trial court’s $75,000 finding for family gifts was supported by evidence | Patrick: the valuation was unsupported and courts cannot set aside marital equity without evidentiary basis | Rachel: gifts (mother’s ~$30k and grandmother’s discount) justified credit and award | Court: evidence supports a >$30k gift from mother but there is no evidence to value grandmother’s alleged below-market transfer; $75,000 finding is unsupported and must be vacated |
| Remedy and disposition | Patrick: seek recalculation and equitable share based on record | Rachel: award stands or can be recalculated consistent with trial court’s view of contributions | Court: vacated factual findings re: gifts and remanded for new factual findings and equitable division considering all §953(1) factors; suggested using existing record to avoid new expense |
Key Cases Cited
- Tibbetts v. Tibbetts, 406 A.2d 70 (Me. 1979) (articulated the former source-of-funds rule)
- Carter v. Carter, 419 A.2d 1018 (Me. 1980) (adopted transmutation doctrine treating transfers into joint title as gifts to marital estate)
- Long v. Long, 697 A.2d 1317 (Me. 1997) (held that placing pre-marriage property into joint title renders it marital and that courts may consider traceable contributions when dividing marital property)
- Spooner v. Spooner, 850 A.2d 354 (Me. 2004) (discussed evolution from source-of-funds to transmutation and joint-title presumptions)
- Miliano v. Miliano, 50 A.3d 534 (Me. 2012) (describes the three-step statutory process under 19-A M.R.S. § 953 for dividing marital and nonmarital property)