English v. English

Marian English (plaintiff) and Carl English (defendant) were a divorced couple. Under their settlement agreement, the Englishes agreed to hold a parcel of property in equal shares as tenants in common, with Carl managing the property. According to Marian’s testimony at trial, the couple had many times discussed the potential of gravel mining the parcel but did not instigate any mining during their marriage. Instead, after the divorce, Carl contracted with a company to mine the property, as well as several other properties nearby. Marian later claimed that she was not consulted regarding this decision. Carl responded that he shared drafts of the agreement with Marian and disputed that she expected any of the profit from the mining. Accordingly, Carl claimed, he paid all the mining expenses with the expectation that he would retain all the profits because he was assuming all the risks. Marian then sued Carl under various theories of liability, ultimately claiming that she was entitled to an equal share of mining profits. Marian moved for summary judgment, seeking an order that because she was a tenant in common, she was entitled to half the profits as a matter of law. Carl responded that Marian was entitled to profits only if the property was sold. The court denied Marian’s motion for summary judgment, and a jury largely sided with Carl. Marian appealed, again claiming that she was entitled to half the mining profits as a matter of law.