Judge: Divorce Code Does Not Apply in Same-Sex Splits

An Allegheny County, PA, Common Pleas Court judge has rejected a woman's attempt to have a brokerage account she entered into with her same-sex partner of 20 years divided equally between the two by applying aspects of the state's Divorce Code to an ongoing property division dispute between her and her same-sex partner of 20 years. Instead, Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. ruled, the proper means of distribution is to proportionately divide the account based on each party's contributions ' a process found in the Multiple Party Accounts Act.

The Decision

The judge said his decision did not constitute a discrimination of sexual preference. “First, Ms. King and Ms. Boyle, if they had wished to do so, could have drafted and executed an agreement providing that regardless of who makes payments into the National City Account, it shall be divided 50/50 as of the date the relationship between the parties is terminated. Such an agreement would be recognized in the Pennsylvania courts,” Wettick wrote in the decision, Boyle v. King. “Second, Ms. Boyle states that, as this court has found, she never agreed to divide all assets based on a 50/50 basis. Therefore, to change the rules as to existing accounts by looking at the names on the account to determine whether an irrevocable gift was made would violate her rights.”

Comments on the Case

Defendant Linda A. King, who represented herself in the matter, said the case was under seal and she was unsure if she wanted to comment on the opinion. Wettick's chambers confirmed that the case was sealed, but noted that the opinion was not sealed and that attorneys could comment if they so chose.

Heather S. Heidelbaugh, an attorney for plaintiff Ann V. Boyle, said she did not find the opinion to be “shocking.” Heidelbaugh said the facts in the case showed that Boyle and King never married and never participated in any type of commitment ceremony. There were disputes as to whether the two had voiced said words intending to be married, but Wettick ruled that such statements were never made.

The MPAA, Heidelbaugh said, was the appropriate solution to the distribution of funds. “That act says that if you have two people ' brother and sister, friends, lovers, it doesn't really matter ' you look at who contributed to that fund and then you separate the fund when they don't want to be on the fund together,” Heidelbaugh said. “In my mind, it's not an extraordinary decision. It's not groundbreaking, it's not anti-gay.”

Background

According to Wettick, Boyle and King were in a relationship from 1987 until July 30, 2007. King argued in a counterclaim to a suit filed by Boyle that the couple had agreed in 1987 to share all the property they accumulated during their relationship, should they decide to split. Boyle contested that claim, according to Wettick, and the judge found in February that King could not support it with her evidence. As a result, Wettick dismissed claims related to such property. He left intact, however, litigation related to jointly owned property, which included a house and a brokerage account.

Boyle subsequently filed a motion seeking the money in the brokerage account, which the couple opened in 1996, to be distributed based on the MPAA. King countered that, since both parties were authorized to make decisions on the account, they were 50% owners of the money in the account and that it should be divided in such a way. The Divorce Code provided for such a ruling, King continued. Further, argued King, any appellate court cases addressing the use of MPAA involved individuals not in a relationship. Because of that, she argued, the current case was distinguishable.

Wettick, however, rejected the argument. “While this may be an accurate statement, where one of the members of the coupled relationship was a major contributor to a fund titled in both names, evidence that she was involved in a 'coupled relationship' does not establish she intended for this account to be equally divided if the nature of the relationship changed,” the judge wrote.

Wettick also wrote in a separate part of his opinion that the distribution of money obtained from the sale of a home owned by King and Boyle needed to be done on a 50/50 basis. According to Wettick, both parties were listed on the deed for the property. Boyle argued that distribution of the funds should reflect the parties' financial contributions to the house. She also argued the primary source of the funds for the house was her money.

To support her argument, Boyle cited a 2004 unpublished U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case, Swails v. Harberer. According to Wettick, the court in that case ruled that the property at issue should be divided proportionally based on each parties' contributions, despite both parties being listed on the deed. King argued that the deed provided the “intent of the parties” and that, when two parties are listed as jointly owning a property, the funds must be divided on a 50/50 basis.

Wettick, in discussing the issue, wrote that the Swails court cited no case law to support its ruling and that it ran contrary to Pennsylvania law on the issue. Several courts, according to Wettick, had previously ruled in favor of King's position. Wettick led his analysis of the issue by citing the 2006 Superior Court case Moore v. Miller. In that case, an unmarried couple owned a property together, but the woman's money was used for the purchase of the property. After she died, according to Wettick, a Superior Court panel ruled that the man in the relationship was entitled to a 50/50 split on the interest of the property with the woman's two surviving children.

“Where the language of the deed is clear and unambiguous, the intent of the grantees must be gleaned solely from its language,” Wettick wrote. “The testimony as to who paid the purchase money is 'irrelevant, immaterial and inadmissible to contradict the language of the deed.' In other words, a party who provides the funding for real property that is placed in the name of that party and another party cannot later argue, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, that the deed is incorrect and that she is either the sole owner of the property or the owner of more than a 50 percent interest.”

Leo Strupczewski is a reporter for The Legal Intelligencer, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter in which this article also appeared.

An Allegheny County, PA, Common Pleas Court judge has rejected a woman's attempt to have a brokerage account she entered into with her same-sex partner of 20 years divided equally between the two by applying aspects of the state's Divorce Code to an ongoing property division dispute between her and her same-sex partner of 20 years. Instead, Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. ruled, the proper means of distribution is to proportionately divide the account based on each party's contributions ' a process found in the Multiple Party Accounts Act.

The Decision

The judge said his decision did not constitute a discrimination of sexual preference. “First, Ms. King and Ms. Boyle, if they had wished to do so, could have drafted and executed an agreement providing that regardless of who makes payments into the National City Account, it shall be divided 50/50 as of the date the relationship between the parties is terminated. Such an agreement would be recognized in the Pennsylvania courts,” Wettick wrote in the decision, Boyle v. King. “Second, Ms. Boyle states that, as this court has found, she never agreed to divide all assets based on a 50/50 basis. Therefore, to change the rules as to existing accounts by looking at the names on the account to determine whether an irrevocable gift was made would violate her rights.”

Comments on the Case

Defendant Linda A. King, who represented herself in the matter, said the case was under seal and she was unsure if she wanted to comment on the opinion. Wettick's chambers confirmed that the case was sealed, but noted that the opinion was not sealed and that attorneys could comment if they so chose.

Heather S. Heidelbaugh, an attorney for plaintiff Ann V. Boyle, said she did not find the opinion to be “shocking.” Heidelbaugh said the facts in the case showed that Boyle and King never married and never participated in any type of commitment ceremony. There were disputes as to whether the two had voiced said words intending to be married, but Wettick ruled that such statements were never made.

The MPAA, Heidelbaugh said, was the appropriate solution to the distribution of funds. “That act says that if you have two people ' brother and sister, friends, lovers, it doesn't really matter ' you look at who contributed to that fund and then you separate the fund when they don't want to be on the fund together,” Heidelbaugh said. “In my mind, it's not an extraordinary decision. It's not groundbreaking, it's not anti-gay.”

Background

According to Wettick, Boyle and King were in a relationship from 1987 until July 30, 2007. King argued in a counterclaim to a suit filed by Boyle that the couple had agreed in 1987 to share all the property they accumulated during their relationship, should they decide to split. Boyle contested that claim, according to Wettick, and the judge found in February that King could not support it with her evidence. As a result, Wettick dismissed claims related to such property. He left intact, however, litigation related to jointly owned property, which included a house and a brokerage account.

Boyle subsequently filed a motion seeking the money in the brokerage account, which the couple opened in 1996, to be distributed based on the MPAA. King countered that, since both parties were authorized to make decisions on the account, they were 50% owners of the money in the account and that it should be divided in such a way. The Divorce Code provided for such a ruling, King continued. Further, argued King, any appellate court cases addressing the use of MPAA involved individuals not in a relationship. Because of that, she argued, the current case was distinguishable.

Wettick, however, rejected the argument. “While this may be an accurate statement, where one of the members of the coupled relationship was a major contributor to a fund titled in both names, evidence that she was involved in a 'coupled relationship' does not establish she intended for this account to be equally divided if the nature of the relationship changed,” the judge wrote.

Wettick also wrote in a separate part of his opinion that the distribution of money obtained from the sale of a home owned by King and Boyle needed to be done on a 50/50 basis. According to Wettick, both parties were listed on the deed for the property. Boyle argued that distribution of the funds should reflect the parties' financial contributions to the house. She also argued the primary source of the funds for the house was her money.

To support her argument, Boyle cited a 2004 unpublished U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case, Swails v. Harberer. According to Wettick, the court in that case ruled that the property at issue should be divided proportionally based on each parties' contributions, despite both parties being listed on the deed. King argued that the deed provided the “intent of the parties” and that, when two parties are listed as jointly owning a property, the funds must be divided on a 50/50 basis.

Wettick, in discussing the issue, wrote that the Swails court cited no case law to support its ruling and that it ran contrary to Pennsylvania law on the issue. Several courts, according to Wettick, had previously ruled in favor of King's position. Wettick led his analysis of the issue by citing the 2006 Superior Court case Moore v. Miller. In that case, an unmarried couple owned a property together, but the woman's money was used for the purchase of the property. After she died, according to Wettick, a Superior Court panel ruled that the man in the relationship was entitled to a 50/50 split on the interest of the property with the woman's two surviving children.

“Where the language of the deed is clear and unambiguous, the intent of the grantees must be gleaned solely from its language,” Wettick wrote. “The testimony as to who paid the purchase money is 'irrelevant, immaterial and inadmissible to contradict the language of the deed.' In other words, a party who provides the funding for real property that is placed in the name of that party and another party cannot later argue, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, that the deed is incorrect and that she is either the sole owner of the property or the owner of more than a 50 percent interest.”

Leo Strupczewski is a reporter for The Legal Intelligencer, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter in which this article also appeared.