AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The parties, who were never married but lived together in a domestic relationship for over eight years and had children together, are in dispute over the division of property acquired during their relationship. The property in question includes a residence and business equipment, both titled solely in the Appellee's name and purchased with the Appellee's employment income. The Appellant contributed to a mortgage payment without the Appellee's knowledge and stayed home to care for their children while the Appellee was employed and started an unsuccessful business.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argues that the district court erred by not dividing the property equally between the parties pursuant to the law of partnership, joint venture, or joint enterprise, despite their unmarried domestic relationship and joint financial activities such as filing income tax returns as married filing jointly and maintaining a joint checking account.
• Appellee: Contends that the property should be considered the Appellee's separate property because it was acquired with the Appellee's employment income and is titled solely in the Appellee's name. The Appellee also argues that no partnership, joint venture, or joint enterprise was established by the parties' relationship or actions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not dividing the property equally between the parties based on the principles of partnership, joint venture, or joint enterprise.
• Whether the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient to support its judgment that no joint venture or partnership existed between the parties.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment that the residence and business equipment are the Appellee's separate property was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring), the court found that the district court's findings of fact were sufficient to support its judgment that no joint venture or partnership existed between the parties. The court noted that the parties did not marry, cohabitated for almost eight and one-half years, and had children together but did not enter into an agreement to combine their money, property, or time in the conduct of a business or particular business venture. The court also highlighted that the Appellee was fully employed during their relationship, started an unsuccessful business with proceeds from a home sold before the relationship, and that the Appellant worked only three months during their relationship. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the district court's judgment that no partnership or joint venture existed, as there was no express or implied agreement between the parties to combine their resources and share profits and losses. The court also addressed policy concerns, stating that extending property rights to cohabitating couples is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts.