Conflicts Between Co-Owners; Marital Interests Flashcards

1
Q

Co-Ownership

A
  • most basic method of sharing ownership
  • might be useful for risk-spreading + multiple uses
  • may include marriages, but also partnerships + corporations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Forms of Co-Ownership

A
  • joint tenancy
  • tenancy in common
  • tenancy by the entirety
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Co-Ownership and Right to Possess

A
  • all co-owners have an equal right to possess the whole (whenever the interest is possessory)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Tenancy in Common

A
  • each tenant in common has a separate but undivided interest
  • no right of survivorship -> each interest is descendible, conveyable, + devisable
  • only requires unity of possession
  • interests need not be equal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Forming Tenancy in Common in a Grant

A
  • simple - would just say “to A and B”

- can also have one co-T who starts w/ a fee simple and creates a concurrent interest in someone else

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Join Tenancy

A
  • like the tenancy in common but w/ right of survivorship - whoever dies first, their interest disappears + the other in the joint tenancy gets the sole ownership
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Unities Required for Joint Tenancy

A
  • unity of possession (all must have right to possess the whole)
  • unity of time (must get the joint tenancy at the same time)
  • unity of title (all must acquire title by same instrument or by joint adverse possession, never by intestate succession or other act of law)
  • unity of interest (must have equal interests in terms of duration + basic package of rights, even though doesn’t need to be equal shares)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Tenancy by the Entirety

A
  • basically joint tenancy for married people - requires the four unities plus the unity of marriage
  • similar right of survivorship, but no unilateral exit option as long as the couple stays married (could get out of it through divorce, or could convey to a straw and convey back as tenants in common, although would need both to do this -can’t do this unilaterally)
  • no longer exists in many states
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Severing Joint Tenancy

A
  • can be done by destroying unity of time, title, or interest
  • can usually do this through some sort of unilateral act - either transfer to a straw, or transfer to self as a tenant in common
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Property Rights of Co-Owners Towards Each Other

A
  • they basically have no property rights towards each other under the common law - can’t exclude another or use/possess a portion of the property exclusively
  • no identification of parts with specific co-Ts - each has equal + undivided right to whole
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Property Rights of Co-Owners Towards outside World

A
  • basically the same as a regular owner (can exclude third-parties, sell interest, use property for enjoyment/profit) EXCEPT if in join tenancy, you lack inheritability (right of survivorship)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What happens when there’s conflict between co-owners?

A
  • courts reluctant to get involved - love it or leave it (don’t arbitrate fights over use, management, + control)
  • co-T can exit via automatic right of partition at any time
  • co-Ts more likely to work out their problems via contract
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Partition

A
  • court order dissolving the co-ownership
  • court will grant at the request of any of the co-owners, without requiring any justification
  • not available to tenants in the entirety (can’t sever unilaterally)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Partition in Kind vs. Partition by Sale

A
  • partition in kind traditionally favored by courts (preserved subjective values + courts don’t like to get involved in valuation issues)
  • BUT recent trend towards sale (w/ personal property + urban land, parcels not as easily split)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Delfino v. Vealencis - Facts

A
  • action for partition in which tenants in common have unequal shares
  • Pls own 69% interest + Def owns 31% interest on 20.5 acre parcel on which Vealancis operates garbage hauling business (long in the family) + has her dwelling
  • rest of the land is undeveloped - Pls want to develop the entire site as a subdivision, + def wants to keep her home and business
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Delfino v. Vealencis - Procedural Posture + Decision

A
  • trial court orders partition by sale

- Connecticut Supreme Court orders partition in kind -> says in kind preferable if possible

17
Q

Delfino v. Vealencis - Standard

A

Partition in kind is favored unless either:

(i) the physical attributes of the land make partition impracticable or inequitable OR
(ii) the interests of the owners would be better served by a partition by sale

18
Q

Gillmor v. Gillmor - Facts

A
  • parties’ fathers own acres of grazing land - interests pass to daughter of one and two sons of the other
  • Florence (daughter) files suit for accounting + damages against CF b/c he used the property exclusively, + also files for partition
19
Q

Ouster

A
  • when one co-tenant prevents another from taking possession
  • most jurisdictions require some attempt to go into possession that is foiled by the other co-tenant (can’t just have expression of intent to possess by non-possessing tenant + refusal by possessing tenant)
  • if ouster occurs, the possessing co-tenant is liable to the other for rent
20
Q

Gillmor v. Gillmor - Holding

A
  • a clear demand by a cotenant to use that is refused establishes ouster + eligibility for accounting (under this standard, they find ouster has been established)
  • court also technically says exclusive use means more than using the entire property - requires either an act of exclusion or use of such a nature that it necessarily prevents the other co-tenant from exercising her rights in the property
21
Q

Normal Process of Establishing Ouster

A
  • essentially more difficult than Gillmor - here it was enough that Gillmor sent him a letter expressing her intention to graze on the land + he continued grazing to max capacity (effectively excluded her use b/c otherwise would’ve had overgrazing)
  • need an act that “necessarily excludes” the other tenant
22
Q

Harms v. Sprague - Facts

A
  • William and John Harms have joint tenancy
  • John Harms gives a mortgage on the joint tenancy property
  • John then dies before the mortgage is paid off -> leaves his estate to Sprague
  • Sprague says mortgage extinguished the joint tenancy (to tenancy in common) -> he now gets half interest as John’s successor + the mortgage attaches to his half of the property
23
Q

Harms v. Sprague - Core Q

A

Does a mortgage sever a joint tenancy and turn it into a tenancy in common?

24
Q

Harms v. Sprague - Decision + Reasoning

A
  • mortgage interpreted as a lien rather than transfer of title -> no severance of joint tenancy
  • lien disappears upon the death of the mortgaging joint tenant (since his entire interest disappears)
25
Q

Marital Property

A
  • surviving spouse gets everything under most circumstances, especially under current intestacy rules
  • spousal forced (elective) share: traditionally between 1/3 and 1/2
26
Q

Marital Property and Divorce - Prior to 1970

A
  • common law states followed title rule for property division, offset by award of periodic payments called alimony designed to provide income support if one spouse economically dependent
  • amount could also be influenced by comparative fault + other equitable considerations
27
Q

Marital Property and Divorce - After 1970

A
  • most states adopted equitable division of property
  • state of title is disregarded - courts focus on dividing in accordance w/ equity
  • no strong presumption in favor of 50-50 as starting point (although changing)
  • movement away from alimony toward lump sum payment, although support payments (now called maintenance) may still be awarded in some cases
28
Q

O’Brien v. O’Brien - Background

A
  • Def (wife) supported husband while he got medical degree in Mex (providing about 76% of their income) + gave up opportunity to obtain permanent teacher certification
  • H filed for divorce several months after he was licensed to practice
29
Q

O’Brien v. O’Brien - Facts

A
  • NY statute provided for equitable division of “marital property”
  • exp testified at trial that husband’s license worth $472,000 (difference in earnings of surgeon relative to average college grad) + value of wife’s contribution was $103,000
  • trial court ordered H to pay 40% of former figure to W in annual installments
  • few if any other assets to divide
30
Q

O’Brien v. O’Brien - Issue on Appeal + Holding

A
  • whether or not H’s medical license = property subject to equitable division
  • court holds that the statute adopts expansive definition + the license is property
31
Q

Post-O’Brien

A
  • states have moved away from license as property (even NY, where O’Brien tried, enacted legislation in 2016 removing enhanced earning capacity from category of marital property subject to division)
  • but seems like can be considered as a factor in equitable division of other assets
32
Q

Community Property

A
  • civil law notion
  • earnings of spouses during marriage are are owned equally in undivided shares by the spouses
  • all property that isn’t community property is separate (property acquired before marriage or during marriage by gift, bequest, devise, or descent, + in some states the earning on these; in other states the earnings on these are community property)