Flower v. Flower

Norman Flower (plaintiff) was 76 years old and Judy Flower (defendant) was 55 years old when they married in January 2006. Before the marriage, Norman owned a house known as the Sugar Creek house, and Judy owned a house known as the Queen Valley house. After the wedding, Norman transferred title to the Sugar Creek house to Judy and himself as community property with right of survivorship. Norman and Judy made improvements to the Queen Valley house. The improvements cost at least $32,000, which Norman and Judy funded by incurring debt, including a home-equity line of credit on the Sugar Creek house. Norman and Judy accrued a total debt of over $61,000 during the marriage. Norman filed a petition for annulment in January 2007, and Judy counter-petitioned for divorce. At trial, the main issues were the allocation of the Sugar Creek house’s value and the allocation of debt relating to the improvements to the Queen Valley house. Norman conceded that he gave a one-half interest in the Sugar Creek house to Judy but argued, among other things, that equitable principles supported awarding him the entire interest in the Sugar Creek house. Judy argued, among other things, that Norman gave her a one-half interest in the Sugar Creek house and the improvements on the Queen Valley house as gifts, and thus he should be solely responsible for paying the debt. The trial court denied Norman’s petition for annulment and then turned to the allocation of assets and debt. The trial court determined that a substantially equal allocation would be inequitable. The court awarded the entire interest in the Sugar Creek house to Norman, reasoning that the community did not contribute towards improving the house’s value and that the home-equity line of credit reduced the community’s equity in the house. The trial court held that any claim that Judy might have to the Sugar Creek house was compensated by the improvements to the Queen Valley house. The trial court awarded the entire interest in the Queen Valley house to Judy. Finally, the trial court found that the community, not Norman, incurred the debt for the improvements and assigned $42,000 in debt to Norman and $16,000 in debt to Judy. Judy appealed, arguing that the trial court should have ordered a substantially equal allocation.