Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Ireland v. Flanagan

Court of Appeals of Oregon
627 P.2d 496 (1981)


Facts

Cherie Ireland (plaintiff) and Sharon Flanagan (defendant) were in a committed, unmarried relationship. During the relationship, Ireland and Flanagan purchased a house in Flanagan’s name and lived together in that house until August 1978. After the relationship ended, Flanagan continued to live in the house. Ireland sued, seeking an award of a one-half interest in the house. Both sides provided conflicting and confusing testimony to the trial court. However, the trial court concluded that Flanagan bought the house, with Ireland contributing $2,000 to the down payment and Flanagan contributing $5,000. Some evidence indicated the parties intended to put the house solely in Flanagan’s name for tax purposes. Other evidence indicated that the parties planned to put the house in both names, but never got around to it. The trial court found the parties had agreed that they would pool their assets for their joint benefit. Both parties testified that their practice was to deposit paychecks into the parties’ joint checking account and pay bills from that joint account, including house payments. Even though neither party had argued a gift theory, the trial court held that Ireland’s contributions to the purchase and improvement of the home were presumed to be gifts to Flanagan, and Ireland had not overcome that presumption. Moreover, the trial court held that Flanagan did not promise to convey any legal or equitable interest in the property to Ireland. Thus, Ireland only had a right to use the property jointly with Flanagan during their relationship. The trial court denied relief to either party. Ireland appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Warren, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.