Murdock vs Murdock

Irene Murdock and her husband were married in 1943 and worked together for hire on various ranches, receiving about $100 a month. In 1947, Murdock and his father-in-law, Nash, purchased a guest ranch for $6000. When they sold it four years later, they divided the profit equally between them. In 1952, Mr. Murdoch purchased additional property from money borrowed, in part, from his mother-in-law. The loan was repaid. Over the years Murdoch bought and then sold bigger and better ranch properties, always in his name. At all times, the Murdochs lived on and operated one or more of these. In none of the purchases did Mrs. Murdoch make a direct financial contribution.

At the same time, Mr. Murdoch was employed by a cattle stock association. While her husband was away for up to five months of the year working for the association. Mrs. Murdoch performed or supervised many of the necessary chores, including driving trucks and tractors; haying; mowing; vaccinating, branding, and dehorning cattle; and working with horses. In effect, while her husband was absent, she ran their properties.

Marital problems arose and in 1968 Mrs. Murdoch left her husband after 25 years of marriage. She brought actions for separation, support, and custody of their son, as well as one-half interest in all lands and assets owned by her husband, on the basis that they were equal partners. Mrs. Murdoch claimed that payments from her bank account were contributions to the partnership agreement. Mr. Murdoch contended that the money he received from time to time usually came from his in-laws and was always repaid. As well, all land, livestock, and equipment were held in his name, and income tax returns were filed in his name only. No formal partnership declaration existed between them.

The trial court granted Mrs. Murdoch a separation and support of $200 a month. Custody of the son was given to the father, and her claim for the one-half interest was dismissed. Mrs. Murdoch appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta, and her action was again dismissed. She then brought a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In a 4-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Mrs. Murdoch was not entitled to any interest in her husband’s land on her part or a partnership agreement between them. All of the work she had done was merely the work “that would be done by any farm wife.”

What is your opinion of this case? Should Mrs. Murdock be granted a 1/2 interest in the guest ranch? (Consider the timeframe - many women chose to be stay-at-home moms at this time.)