Nichols v. Funderburk

Supreme Court of Mississippi · 2004 · Family Law

Family Lawequitable division of propertycohabitationputative marriagepartnershipcohabitationequitable distributionunmarried partners

Facts

Lori Nichols and David Wayne Funderburk lived together from about 1989 until 2001 and had two children, but they never married. During the relationship, David owned the house, operated a family restaurant, and later received an apartment complex; Lori worked at the restaurant and was paid weekly, but her name was never placed on any title or account and she had no authority over David's accounts. Both parties testified that David and his parents never intended for Lori to have a major role in the family businesses. Lori sought equitable division of David's property after the couple separated.

Issue

Whether an unmarried cohabitant who contributed domestic services and worked in the other cohabitant's business is entitled to equitable division of property owned by the other cohabitant. More specifically, the question was whether the facts showed a partnership or acquisition of assets through the parties' joint efforts despite the absence of marriage or any appearance of marriage.

Rule

Mere cohabitation does not vest marital rights. Equitable division of property is a concept of marital and domestic law, with a recognized exception where there was a marriage or the appearance of a marriage when no legal marriage actually existed; absent that, an unmarried cohabitant must show that the parties lived together in a partnership and accumulated property through their joint efforts.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Jackson, Mississippi, Erin Voss lived with Caleb Morrow for twelve years, and they raised one child together. Caleb alone bought a duplex during the relationship, kept title solely in his name, and paid the mortgage; Erin handled cooking, cleaning, and childcare but never claimed they were married.

If Erin seeks equitable division of the duplex after the breakup, what is the strongest basis for denying her claim?

Explanation. The majority held that equitable division is generally a marital remedy and that mere cohabitation does not vest marital rights. Without a marriage, an appearance of marriage, or proof that the parties lived together in a partnership and accumulated property through joint efforts, Erin is not entitled to equitable division of Caleb's solely titled property. (Derived from Nichols v. Funderburk (n.d.).)