- 19 -
Byrum, 408 U.S. 125, 145 (1972) (possession and enjoyment are
synonymous with substantial present economic benefit). The fact
that decedent personally used less than all of the property does
not demonstrate that she did not possess and enjoy the entire
property.
In contrast, where a decedent continues exclusive possession
and continues to pay taxes and other property expenses after the
transfer and the owner of record title neither charges rent nor
takes possession of the property, these facts are highly
indicative of an implied agreement. See Guynn v. United States,
supra at 1150; Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, supra at 87.
Here, however, decedent shared the property with Dean and his
wife and rented the property at a below-market rent (discussed in
more detail infra sec. II) to Coastal Ranches. Pursuant to its
leases, Coastal Ranches paid the taxes and other property
expenses associated with parcel 3. These facts do not of
themselves prove the absence of an implied agreement.
On balance, the objective facts convince us that an implied
agreement giving decedent continuing possession and enjoyment of
the entire homestead property did not exist. Unlike the
authority that has been cited in respondent’s brief, this case
involves a transfer of less than a fee simple interest in
property. The majority owner’s continued use and possession of
real property following transfer of a minority interest is not
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011