In 1999, an Indiana woman bought a home with a $10,000 loan from her grandparents; 22 years later, her former partner’s brother acquired half the property and tried to force a sale, but an appeals court let her keep it

Representative Image (AI-generated)

A home bought with help from grandparents and maintained through decades of mortgage payments, repairs and household expenses became the centre of an unusual family property dispute in Indiana. More than two decades after purchasing the house, a woman found herself facing a demand to sell it from her former partner’s brother, who had acquired a half-interest in the property. Despite having little financial involvement in the home, he sought to have it partitioned and sold. However, an appeals court has now upheld a decision allowing the woman to retain the entire property.In an October 29, 2026, opinion, available on Justia, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in Terry W Curella v. Gina A Behny. The court found no clear error in the decision to award the house to Gina Behny after considering her financial contributions over more than 25 years and the limited payments made by Terry Curella. The ruling also upheld a $4,307.95 monetary judgment against him, bringing the dispute over ownership and financial responsibility closer to resolution.

A house bought with help from grandparents

The dispute dates back to 1999, when Behny purchased a house in Kokomo, Indiana. To arrange the down payment, she borrowed $10,000 from her grandparents and financed the remaining $42,000 through a mortgage. Her boyfriend at the time, Gregg Curella, moved into the property with her. Around 2001, Behny needed additional money to pay an attorney in a child custody matter and carry out repairs to the house. Gregg agreed to co-sign a refinancing arrangement, increasing the mortgage from approximately $42,000 to $57,580.As part of the transaction, Behny signed a quitclaim deed transferring the property into joint ownership between herself and Gregg as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. Although Gregg eventually moved out in the autumn of 2004, his name remained on the property title. Behny, meanwhile, continued living in the house and taking responsibility for its expenses. She later lived there with her husband, Peter, and his disabled adult son.

Former boyfriend’s brother acquires a half-interest

The ownership dispute took a new turn in January 2021, when Gregg transferred his interest in the property to his brother, Terry Curella, through a quitclaim deed. The transfer was recorded on January 29, 2021, giving Terry an undivided half-interest in the house. Terry had never lived in the property. According to the court record, Gregg had lived there between 2001 and 2004 but had not made mortgage payments. Terry’s financial involvement was also limited. He made one mortgage payment of $657.19 and one property tax payment of $456.64, which duplicated a payment already made through Behny’s mortgage escrow.The ownership transfer also affected Behny’s finances. After Terry’s name was recorded on the title, she lost her homestead deduction, causing her monthly mortgage payment to increase by approximately $100 for two years. In April 2022, around 15 months after acquiring his interest, Terry petitioned the court to partition the property by sale. He submitted an appraisal valuing the house at $98,000 and sought to exercise his rights as a co-owner.

Woman’s $275,462 contribution becomes central

Behny opposed the proposed sale, arguing that she had carried the financial responsibility for the property over the years. Her contributions included mortgage payments, property taxes, homeowners’ insurance, utilities, repairs and maintenance. She also paid for major improvements, including a new roof, furnace and water heater, bathroom repairs and a $1,000 insurance deductible following water damage.The trial court calculated her total contributions towards the property at $275,462.25. By comparison, Terry had made only two payments, both of which largely duplicated expenses already covered by Behny. Following a bench trial on August 28, 2024, the trial court concluded that requiring a sale would be grossly unfair. Although it granted Terry’s petition for partition, the court awarded the entire property to Behny and directed him to transfer his interest to her through a quitclaim deed.

Appeals court upholds the decision

Terry challenged the ruling before the Indiana Court of Appeals, questioning how the trial court had calculated the parties’ respective contributions and why Behny was awarded the entire property. The appeals court acknowledged a procedural error involving the trial court’s failure to include the parties’ proposed findings and conclusions in the official record. However, it found that the error had not prejudiced Terry because the documents were available through the appeal record.On the ownership issue, the judges found that Terry had not demonstrated clear error in the trial court’s decision. Even if Behny received only partial credit for several categories of her claimed expenses, her contributions would still substantially exceed the estimated value of Terry’s half-interest, which was approximately $46,400 based on his appraisal.The court also upheld the monetary judgment, which included compensation for Behny’s lost homestead deduction and addressed the treatment of a judgment lien against Terry. Although the lien had reached the end of its ten-year period before the final trial court judgment, the appeals court noted that the record did not establish whether any statutory exceptions applied. It found no error in the trial court’s decision to place the associated financial risk on Terry.The Indiana Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the lower court’s judgment on October 29, 2026, allowing Behny to retain the house and requiring Terry to pay the $4,307.95 judgment. The decision brings attention to an important distinction in shared property ownership: holding a legal interest in a home does not necessarily settle how its value and financial contributions should be divided when a dispute reaches court. In this case, decades of payments, upkeep and investment proved central to determining who would keep the property.