I respectfully dissent.
Tannehill sought to have the jury find she and Finch had a pooling agreement. Finch admitted living with her but denied any such agreement. He maintained the accumulated assets were his: she had been amply compensated for any of her efforts. Thus the jury had to choose one version over *229the other. It did! It believed.Tannehill. And the record, no matter what the applicable burden of proof, supports that conclusion.1
I would affirm the judgment.
The petition of respondent Tannehill for review by the Supreme. Court was denied March 11, 1987.
The evidence included but was not limited to the following: She did the recordkeeping on the properties and all of the secretarial work. She interfaced with the tenants, collected the rents and helped with the problems. She testified she advised him concerning the purchasing of the real property and she helped effectuate the sales.