Image AI generated
In 2014, Bedell and Parsons purchased a property in Bonneville County, Idaho. Parsons filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that she held a 50 per cent ownership interest and requesting that the property title be held jointly in both their names. Both their names appeared on the purchase and sale agreement and the special warranty deed filed in the county. Bedell paid the property’s taxes, utilities, insurance and other expenses. Parsons testified that they had purchased it as a vacation home and jointly hosted family members and friends there. Bedell subsequently maintained that he had paid the entire purchase price. Bedell then filed a lawsuit in Bonneville County, seeking a declaration that Parsons had no ownership interest in the property and requesting that the title be placed solely in his name. He later amended his complaint to include a partition claim, asking the court to award him the entire property.
After their relationship ended in 2020, his former partner transferred her interest in the property to a California nonprofit organisation, only for it to be transferred back to her several weeks later. The dispute reached the Idaho Supreme Court, which overturned a lower court’s decision awarding the woman a 50 per cent share and ordering the property to be sold. Paul Martin Bedell and Joanne Parsons were in a romantic relationship between 2007 and 2020. Larsen, issued in 2023. Relying on this principle, the district court concluded that Parsons held a 50 per cent interest in the property.
An Idaho man who says he paid the entire purchase price and covered every expense of a property bought with his former partner has been caught up in a legal battle over its ownership. Bedell contributed towards the utilities, maintenance and other household expenses while living there, but did not pay rent or a mortgage, according to the Idaho Supreme Court judgment. The case has now been sent back for further proceedings. They were never married and lived together for much of their relationship at Parsons’ home in California. The couple also testified that they jointly purchased investment properties in California to renovate and resell for profit. That ruling established a rebuttable presumption of equal ownership when two individuals’ names appear on a warranty deed without specifying their respective interests. The presumption can be challenged through evidence demonstrating that the parties intended a different ownership arrangement. It found that Bedell had not provided sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of equal ownership and ordered a partition by sale. The court also considered evidence presented by Parsons, including her claims that she participated in selecting the property, helped negotiate its purchase price, decorated its interior and provided materials for an outbuilding. Bedell disputed several of these claims.
The ownership dispute was considered alongside an earlier Idaho Supreme Court decision, Demoney-Hendrickson v.