## Facts

- Wilma Jean Wilbur and Noel Lee DeLapp lived together in Oregon for about 18 years but never married; Oregon did not recognize common-law marriage.
- When the parties separated in 1989, Wilbur was 63 and DeLapp was 46.
- DeLapp worked full time (State Highway Division) and paid most household expenses during the relationship.
- Wilbur’s primary contribution was homemaking; she also worked during parts of the relationship and contributed those earnings to household expenses.
- Wilbur contributed additional funds to the household from an inheritance (about $5,000), proceeds from the dissolution of a prior marriage (about $3,000), and later Social Security benefits (beginning in 1983), which she used toward shared expenses.
- In 1977, DeLapp purchased the home where the parties lived until separation using a Department of Veterans Affairs loan; title was in DeLapp’s name only.
- To make the home eligible for the loan, Wilbur sold jewelry to pay for required repairs.
- DeLapp paid the mortgage and utility bills (except the telephone bill).
- The parties jointly purchased and held title to a travel trailer and a Trail’s End membership.
- Shortly before the breakup, DeLapp purchased a lot in La Pine; Wilbur testified it was intended for joint retirement use, while DeLapp disputed that characterization.
- DeLapp accumulated about $33,000 in his PERS retirement account during the relationship; Wilbur had been a named beneficiary at one point but was not a beneficiary at the time of trial, and she had minimal savings.
- Wilbur brought an equitable action to divide assets acquired during the cohabitation. The trial court treated the house and the retirement account as joint property and awarded Wilbur a one-half interest, while awarding DeLapp the retirement asset; it also made joint awards of the travel trailer and Trail’s End membership.
- DeLapp appealed the property division, and Wilbur cross-appealed, seeking a complete division of jointly held property rather than continued shared ownership.

## Issues

1. In an equitable action between unmarried cohabitants, should the parties’ home (titled only in one partner’s name) be treated as jointly shared property based on the parties’ conduct and contributions?
2. Where one partner has no legal entitlement to the other partner’s PERS benefits at trial, may the court still award relief reflecting contributions to the couple’s financial circumstances and retirement planning?
3. Should the appellate court modify the judgment to end ongoing joint ownership by reallocating jointly titled assets and using an equalizing money judgment?

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals modified the judgment and, as modified, affirmed.
- To end continued joint ownership, the court awarded DeLapp full interest in the house and the La Pine lot.
- The court awarded Wilbur full interest in the travel trailer and the Trail’s End membership.
- The court granted Wilbur a money judgment of $16,750 against DeLapp (with interest), reflecting her contributions, including to the parties’ financial provisions for retirement.
- No costs were awarded to either party.

## Legal Principles

- Property disputes between unmarried cohabitants are resolved in equity by determining the parties’ express or implied intent regarding shared ownership and sharing of benefits from assets acquired during the relationship.
- Legal title is evidence of ownership but is not conclusive where the parties’ conduct and shared arrangements support an implied agreement or expectation that property would be shared.
- A partner’s contributions may be monetary or nonmonetary (including homemaking and other services) and can support an equitable award tied to assets accumulated during cohabitation.
- Even when a partner has no legal entitlement to retirement benefits (such as PERS benefits when not a beneficiary), a court may award a monetary remedy that reflects contributions to the couple’s overall financial circumstances, including retirement planning.
- Courts may structure equitable relief to separate the parties’ affairs by awarding full title of specific assets to one party and using a money judgment to equalize, rather than leaving the parties in ongoing joint ownership.

## Conclusion

The court applied Oregon’s intent-focused equitable approach for nonmarital partners, concluding that Wilbur’s financial and homemaking contributions supported relief despite DeLapp’s sole title to key assets and her lack of a legal claim to PERS benefits at trial, and it modified the decree to end shared ownership by reallocating assets and awarding Wilbur a $16,750 money judgment reflecting, in substantial part, the parties’ retirement-related financial arrangements.


Wilbur v. DeLapp, 850 P.2d 1151 (1993)