## Facts

- Beth Heinzman lived in a residence as a tenant, and in 1970 the owner planned to sell, which would end her tenancy.
- William G. Heinzman contracted to purchase the property in July 1970; the purchase closed in December 1970.
- William moved into the residence in late September 1970, and he and Beth lived there together until June 1973.
- In spring 1971, William gave Beth an engagement ring and expressed an intent to marry; the trial court found an engagement existed.
- By deed executed March 25, 1971 and recorded April 16, 1971, William conveyed the residence to himself and Beth as joint tenants (Beth was named as “Beth Lavato”).
- In June 1973, Beth moved to Sparks, Nevada; the parties did not live together after that.
- William married someone else on August 26, 1974.
- Beth commenced the case as a dissolution action based on an alleged common-law marriage.
- The district court found no common-law marriage, but with the parties’ consent it proceeded to decide their rights in the jointly titled residence.
- The district court found the joint-tenancy conveyance was a gift conditioned on a subsequent ceremonial marriage, that Beth abandoned the home and the engagement, and that William did not cause the condition to fail.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court could determine the parties’ property rights in the residence after finding no common-law marriage, where the property dispute was tried by consent.
2. Whether William’s conveyance of a joint-tenancy interest to Beth created a constructive trust or resulting trust in William’s favor as to Beth’s record interest.
3. Whether the joint-tenancy interest was a conditional gift made in contemplation of a ceremonial marriage, permitting William to recover the transferred interest when the marriage did not occur.
4. Whether Colorado’s heart-balm statute barring actions for breach of promise to marry prevented a court from ordering return of the transferred property interest.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the judgment requiring Beth to convey her record interest in the residence back to William.
- The court affirmed on the trial court’s theory: the transfer to joint tenancy was a gift conditioned on a subsequent ceremonial marriage, and the condition failed when the marriage did not occur after Beth ended the relationship.
- The court rejected the court of appeals’ reliance on an equitable trust theory, holding that the conveyance and surrounding circumstances did not, by themselves, establish a constructive trust or resulting trust in William’s favor.
- The court held the heart-balm statute did not bar the remedy because the case sought return of specific property transferred on a condition, not damages for breach of a promise to marry.
- The court also approved the district court’s authority to decide the property dispute even after finding no marriage, because the matter was tried by consent and could be resolved under applicable procedural rules and statutory authority.

## Legal Principles

- A substantial transfer made in contemplation of marriage may be treated as a conditional gift when the factfinder determines the parties intended marriage to be a condition of the transfer.
- If the condition (a contemplated marriage) does not occur, a court may order return of the gifted property interest, including an interest in real property conveyed into joint tenancy.
- A donor’s act of placing property in joint tenancy with a fiancée or partner does not, without additional facts, establish a constructive trust or resulting trust in favor of the donor.
- A heart-balm statute abolishing actions based on breach of a promise to marry does not bar an action seeking restitutionary return of specific property transferred conditionally in contemplation of marriage.
- A trial court may resolve property rights between cohabitants in a marital-dissolution proceeding after finding no marriage when the property issues are tried by consent and are properly before the court under procedural and statutory authority.

## Conclusion

In re Marriage of Heinzman upheld a district court order requiring Beth to reconvey her joint-tenancy interest in a residence to William because the transfer was found to be a conditional gift tied to a contemplated ceremonial marriage that never occurred; the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on that conditional-gift rationale, rejected trust-based theories, and held the heart-balm statute did not prevent restitution of the specific property interest.


In re Marriage of Heinzman, 198 Colo. 36, 596 P.2d 61 (1979)