The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled in a property dispute involving Terry W. Curella and Gina A. Behny, affirming a lower court's decision that awarded a Kokomo house entirely to Behny. This ruling, issued on October 29, 2026, affects the rights of co-owners in property disputes, particularly in cases involving contributions to property maintenance and ownership.

The case, identified as 25A-PL-01700, arose when Terry Curella acquired a half-interest in a house from his brother, Gregg Curella, in January 2021. Terry petitioned to partition the property by sale about 15 months later. However, Gina Behny, who had lived in the house since 1999 and made all mortgage payments and improvements, opposed the sale. The trial court ruled in favor of Gina, leading to Terry's appeal.

In the background of this case, Gina purchased the house in 1999 and financed it with a mortgage. Gregg moved in with her and later co-signed a refinance. However, he moved out in 2004, and his name remained on the title. Gina continued to live there and made all necessary payments, totaling over $275,000. In January 2021, Gregg transferred his interest to Terry, who then made minimal contributions to the property.

After Terry's petition for partition, the trial court held a bench trial. The court ultimately awarded the entire property to Gina, requiring Terry to sign over his interest and pay her $4,307.95. The court found that Gina had made all contributions to the house, while Terry had not demonstrated any significant involvement.

The court ruled, "the equities require that Gina be permitted to maintain ownership of the home and the property. Gina has made all of the contributions to the home for more than 25 years, while there was no evidence that Terry (or Gregg, for that matter) made any equitable contributions." The ruling was made by Judge May, with Judges Altice and Foley concurring.

The court's decision emphasized the importance of equitable contributions in property ownership disputes. It found that requiring a sale of the property would be grossly unfair given Gina's long-term investment in the house. The court also addressed Terry's arguments regarding the financial aspects of the ruling, including his claims about the homestead deduction and judgment lien.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating that while it erred in denying Terry's motion to add proposed findings to the official record, the error was harmless. The court found that Terry's arguments did not demonstrate clear error in the trial court's determination that equity required him to sign over his interest in the house to Gina.

This ruling sets a significant precedent in property law, particularly for cases involving co-ownership and the equitable contributions of one party over another. It highlights the court's willingness to prioritize the party who has made substantial contributions to the property over the mere legal title holder.

Looking ahead, this ruling could influence future property disputes in Indiana, particularly those involving family members or co-owners. The court's decision underscores the importance of financial contributions and the potential for one party to retain ownership despite having less legal claim.

Terry may consider appealing the decision to a higher court, but the specifics of any potential appeal were not detailed in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.