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
2
Q
Forms of Co-Ownership
A
- joint tenancy
- tenancy in common
- tenancy by the entirety
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)
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
