## Facts

- Marian English and Carl English divorced and, under their dissolution settlement, agreed to hold a parcel of real property in equal shares as tenants in common, with Carl responsible for managing the property.
- During the marriage, the parties discussed that the parcel might have value for gravel mining, but no mining began before the divorce.
- After the divorce, Carl entered into a gravel-mining arrangement involving the jointly owned parcel and other nearby properties.
- Marian asserted she was not consulted about the mining contract and claimed entitlement to one-half of the mining profits attributable to the jointly owned parcel.
- Carl asserted Marian saw drafts of the agreement, did not expect to share in mining profits, and that he paid mining expenses and assumed operational risk with the expectation of keeping profits.

## Issues

1. Whether a tenant in common is entitled, as a matter of law, to one-half of profits from gravel mining conducted by the other cotenant on commonly owned property.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying Marian’s motion for summary judgment on her claim to a 50/50 split of mining profits.
3. Whether disputed facts about the parties’ understandings, consent, and allocation of expenses and risk required resolution by a jury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Marian’s summary judgment motion.
- The court upheld the result reached after trial, where the jury largely found in Carl’s favor.
- The court rejected Marian’s contention that cotenancy status alone established a right to half of the mining profits as a matter of law.
- The court concluded that factual disputes concerning the parties’ expectations, communications, and the financial and risk contributions to the mining operation made summary judgment inappropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper when material facts are genuinely disputed, including disputes about parties’ intent, consent, and the practical allocation of costs and risks in a property-related enterprise.
- Equal record ownership as tenants in common does not necessarily compel an automatic equal division of operational profits derived from one cotenant’s unilateral, expense-bearing exploitation of the property.
- Claims to proceeds from extraction or depletion of common property commonly require fact-specific accounting that considers expenses, risk assumed, and any agreement or acquiescence between the cotenants.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment and the post-trial outcome, holding that Marian was not entitled to a 50/50 split of gravel-mining profits as a matter of law and that the dispute depended on contested facts about the parties’ understanding and the allocation of costs and risks.


English v. English, No. 25623-4-II, 2002 Wash. App. LEXIS 2085 (Wash. Ct. App. June 14, 2002)