- 14 -
for “bills”--but this is too late to have much bearing on the
parties’ intent at the time of purchase.
The Court accepts Ms. Scott’s testimony, which is
corroborated, that she provided all of the services required to
maintain the household, including significant maintenance work.
Obviously, these services were valuable and benefited Ms.
Horstmeier. Nonetheless, because Ms. Horstmeier was providing
Ms. Scott with money for her living expenses, we believe the
facts in this record are susceptible of another reasonable
explanation; namely, that Ms. Scott’s services in the 1970’s were
repayment for her living expenses, including rent. Ms. Scott has
not shown that the value of her services so exceeded both the
money being given her by Ms. Horstmeier and a fair market rent
that the services must have been repayment for a half interest in
the Glenview house. It is not unreasonable to interpret the
services as reimbursement for living expenses and rent, rather
than repayment of half the acquisition costs for the property.
Certainly this interpretation is consistent with Ms. Horstmeier’s
retention of legal title for nearly 20 years while relinquishing
it in other circumstances; i.e., with respect to the Wisconsin
property. It is also consistent with Ms. Scott’s contention that
she would not have agreed to live with Ms. Horstmeier without
paying her fair share.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011