Court: What’s his is hers

Listen to this article

Donna Zuromski did not get mad when her former lover asked her to leave the Shady Side house they had shared for nearly a decade.

She got even, or, more precisely, an even share of the house that was held only in the name of her ex-beau, Sean Porter, a Maryland appeals court held Monday.

The Court of Special Appeals said its decision giving Zuromski a 50 percent interest marked the first time a Maryland appellate court had ruled on an issue “oft-litigated” in other states: the property rights of formerly cohabitating couples.

In its 3-0 decision, the court rejected Porter’s argument he was the home’s sole owner because he alone had been accepted for the mortgage loan and his was the only name on the deed. Porter had also argued in vain that Zuromski’s complaint was not a property claim but a “palimony” action, which Maryland law does not recognize.

But the court said Zuromski’s financial contributions to the down payment and mortgage entitled her to a “constructive trust” in the property. Permitting Porter to retain sole ownership of the house in light of Zuuromski’s contributions would result in his “unjust enrichment,” the appeals court added in upholding a judge’s order that a trustee divide the property.

“A constructive trust is a remedy that converts the holder of legal title to property into a trustee for one who in good conscience should reap the benefits of the property,” Judge Robert A. Zarnoch wrote for the appellate court.

Zarnoch rejected Porter’s argument that Zuromski sought some sort of palimony, saying she was not after “alimony from or for a pal.”

Palimony refers to claims for financial support or those that are based on promises of marriage or “predicated upon meretricious sexual services,” Zarnoch said.

By contrast, Zuromski’s claim “arises from her financial contributions to the property and the unjust enrichment that would consequently occur if Porter retained sole title to the house,” Zarnoch added.

Zuromski’s attorney, Alan W. Bernstein, praised the court for recognizing that her equal financial contribution entitled her to half the home.

“These are not unusual occurrences between unmarried couples,” said Bernstein, of Bernstein & Feldman PA in Annapolis. “People don’t give up their property rights because they haven’t gotten married.”

Porter’s attorney, William M. Ferris, said Monday afternoon that he had not reviewed the decision and could not comment on it. Ferris is with Krause & Ferris in Annapolis.

In its decision, the Court of Special Appeals agreed with Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Michele D. Jaklitsch that Porter and Zuromski had “an undivided interest in the property.” The judge ordered that title be changed to reflect joint ownership.

The ill-fated romance began in 1993, and the pair became engaged two years later. But their marriage plans were put on hold when Zuromski’s brother was injured in an accident in 1996, according to Jaklitsch’s opinion.

In 1997, they decided to buy a home. Porter found the house and, together, they applied for a mortgage loan.

The application, however, was rejected due to Zuromski’s low credit score and impending bankruptcy, Jaklitsch said.

Porter then applied in his name only, was accepted in 1998 and made a down payment. Zuromski paid Porter her share of that payment.

The couple agreed that Porter’s name would go on the deed but that he would hold the property for both of them.

Zuromski paid half of all mortgage, utility and other house payments. The couple also split the tax benefits from the house 50-50.

When the romance ended in June 2007, Porter told Zuromski to get out and rejected her request to divide the property.

In October 2007, Zuromski sued Porter in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, claiming she should be given a constructive trust in the property and awarded a 50 percent share.

Jaklitsch agreed after a two-day trial in February 2008, prompting Porter’s appeal.

Zarnoch was joined in his opinion by Judges Alexander Wright Jr. and Charles E. Moylan Jr., a retired jurist who was sitting by special assignment.

What the court held

Case:

Porter v. Zuromski, CSA No. 369, Sept. Term 2009. Reported. Opinion by Zarnoch, J. Filed Oct. 4, 2010.

Issue:

Did the trial judge err in granting a woman a constructive trust on a house titled only in her former beau’s name?

Holding:

No; the grant of a constructive trust was proper because she shared the financial obligations of the home, including mortgage and utility payments.

Counsel:

William M. Ferris for appellant; Alan W. Bernstein for appellee.

RecordFax # 10-1004-01 (16 pages).