Wilbur v. DeLapp

Oregon Court of Appeals · 1993 · Property

850 P.2d 1151 (1993)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertynon-marital cohabitationequitable division of propertyunmarried cohabitantsdomestic relationshipimplied intentequityhouse ownership

Facts

The parties lived together for 18 years but never married. Defendant paid most living expenses and held title in his name alone to the house, while plaintiff contributed as homemaker, contributed earnings, social security income, inheritance money, settlement funds, and sold jewelry to help repair the house. The parties jointly owned a travel trailer and Trail's End membership, and defendant also accumulated a PERS retirement account and bought La Pine property shortly before separation. After separation, the trial court awarded plaintiff a half interest in the house, a money award based on the PERS account, and joint interests in some property, while awarding the La Pine property to defendant.

Issue

In a property dispute between unmarried cohabitants, may the court award plaintiff interests in property titled solely in defendant's name and a money judgment reflecting retirement contributions based on the parties' intent and equitable considerations? Also, should the parties' property interests be disentangled through modified awards and offsets?

Rule

In dividing property arising from a non-marital domestic relationship, Oregon courts are not governed by marital property statutes or any presumption of equal contribution. The primary consideration is the parties' express or implied intent regarding ownership, but the court may also exercise equitable powers to reach a fair result based on the circumstances of the case. Legal title alone is not dispositive of ownership interests.

🔒

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.

For 14 years, Nora Baines and Leo Mercer lived together in Eugene, Oregon, but never married. Leo bought a house in his name alone, paid the mortgage, and handled property taxes, while Nora paid for a roof replacement with inherited funds, contributed wages to household expenses when employed, and otherwise managed the home full time.

In Nora's suit seeking an ownership interest in the house after separation, which is the strongest basis for a court to award her such an interest?

Explanation. The majority held that in disputes between unmarried cohabitants, marital property presumptions do not apply. The primary inquiry is the parties' express or implied intent, and legal title is relevant but not dispositive. Financial contributions, homemaking, and pooled resources can support an inference that the non-titled partner was intended to have an ownership interest.