Adamson v. Hunt
FACTS
-P Margaret married Brian.
-After the marriage, they wanted to purchased a four plex apartment, and put down the earnest money with Hunt (D).
-Brian’s mother, Inez (D) advanced down payment of $5000 and was listed as a purchaser of the property.
-Seven years after the K, Brian conveyed interest to his father.
-3 mos. later Brian and Margaret filed for divorce, with interest set aside solely to Margaret. -Divorce decree specified that property was awarded to Margaret.
ISSUE
Did Brain and Margaret have one half interest as tenants by the entirety, and did Inez had a one half interest individually?
HOLDING
Yes.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-P filed suit to determine equitable interest in a land sale contract between herself, and co-purchaser.
-The trial ct. decreed P owned 2/3 and D owned 1/3 interest and ordered an accounting and sale of those interests. D appeals. Reversed in part.
RULES
-The historical unity of husband and wife is apparent in the tendency of courts to award each couple only a single share under a tenancy by the entirety conveyance.
APPLICATION
-The divorce decree awarded P Margaret all rights and title to interest formerly belonging to Brian.
-Brian and Margaret formerly owned ½ of the interest as tenants by the entirety, and thereby Margaret then owned ½ of the total interest in the property.
-D by virtue of the deed owned the other ½ of the interest to the property.
-The concept of tenancy by the entirety is that the husband and wife are but one person in the law.
FACTS
-P Margaret married Brian.
-After the marriage, they wanted to purchased a four plex apartment, and put down the earnest money with Hunt (D).
-Brian’s mother, Inez (D) advanced down payment of $5000 and was listed as a purchaser of the property.
-Seven years after the K, Brian conveyed interest to his father.
-3 mos. later Brian and Margaret filed for divorce, with interest set aside solely to Margaret. -Divorce decree specified that property was awarded to Margaret.
ISSUE
Did Brain and Margaret have one half interest as tenants by the entirety, and did Inez had a one half interest individually?
HOLDING
Yes.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-P filed suit to determine equitable interest in a land sale contract between herself, and co-purchaser.
-The trial ct. decreed P owned 2/3 and D owned 1/3 interest and ordered an accounting and sale of those interests. D appeals. Reversed in part.
RULES
-The historical unity of husband and wife is apparent in the tendency of courts to award each couple only a single share under a tenancy by the entirety conveyance.
APPLICATION
-The divorce decree awarded P Margaret all rights and title to interest formerly belonging to Brian.
-Brian and Margaret formerly owned ½ of the interest as tenants by the entirety, and thereby Margaret then owned ½ of the total interest in the property.
-D by virtue of the deed owned the other ½ of the interest to the property.
-The concept of tenancy by the entirety is that the husband and wife are but one person in the law.
