## Facts

- Cherie H. Ireland and Sharon A. Flanagan were in a committed, unmarried relationship and lived together as a household.
- During the relationship, they purchased a residence that was titled solely in Flanagan’s name, and they lived there together until the relationship ended in August 1978.
- The trial court found the parties had an express oral agreement to pool their assets “for their joint benefit.”
- Consistent with that agreement, the parties maintained joint financial arrangements, including joint checking and savings accounts, and they deposited paychecks into a joint checking account from which they paid household bills, including house payments.
- The down payment totaled $7,000: Flanagan contributed $5,000 (borrowed from her credit union), and Ireland contributed $2,000 obtained from the sale of her automobile.
- The evidence about why title was in Flanagan’s name was conflicting: some evidence suggested the parties intended title solely in Flanagan for tax reasons; other evidence suggested they planned to place title in both names but never did.
- Ireland also contributed money and labor toward improvements to the residence during the relationship.
- After the breakup, Flanagan continued to live in the house, and Ireland filed a suit in equity seeking an award of a one-half interest in the residence and related equitable relief.
- Flanagan denied Ireland’s claim and counterclaimed for payment of alleged joint debts and return of personal property.
- The trial court denied relief to both sides, reasoning (even though neither party argued a gift theory) that Ireland’s contributions were presumed gifts to Flanagan and that Flanagan had not promised to convey any legal or equitable interest to Ireland.

## Issues

1. Whether an express agreement between unmarried cohabitants to pool assets for their joint benefit, together with joint financial conduct and contributions to a house titled in one partner’s name, can support recognition of an equitable ownership interest for the other partner.
2. Whether the trial court erred by applying a presumption that the non-title partner’s contributions toward purchase and improvement of the residence were gifts to the titleholder.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Ireland any equitable relief based on its view that Ireland had only a right of joint use during the relationship.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed the trial court’s denial of relief to Ireland.
- The court held that, on the trial court’s own findings (including the existence of an agreement to pool assets for the parties’ joint benefit and their course of dealing), it was error to treat Ireland’s contributions as presumed gifts.
- The court concluded Ireland was entitled to an equitable interest in the residence despite legal title being solely in Flanagan’s name.
- The case was remanded for entry of relief consistent with the appellate opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may enforce express agreements between unmarried cohabitants regarding property and finances when enforcement rests on ordinary contract and equity principles rather than on the relationship itself.
- An agreement to pool assets for the parties’ joint benefit, supported by conduct such as joint accounts and joint payment of household expenses, can justify recognizing an equitable interest in property titled in only one partner’s name.
- A presumed-gift approach is not appropriate where the evidence and findings show a mutual financial arrangement aimed at shared benefit, and where neither party litigated the dispute as a gift case.
- Legal title is relevant evidence but does not necessarily control equitable ownership when the parties’ agreement and performance show joint acquisition and treatment of the property.

## Conclusion

Ireland v. Flanagan held that where unmarried partners expressly agreed to pool their assets and actually managed their finances as a unit, equity could recognize Ireland’s ownership interest in a house titled solely in Flanagan’s name; the appellate court rejected the trial court’s unsolicited presumed-gift rationale and remanded for appropriate equitable relief consistent with the parties’ agreement and conduct.


Ireland v. Flanagan, 627 P.2d 496 (1981)