Opinion ID: 1342431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Severance of the Joint Tenancy

Text: In Syllabus Point 1, Herring v. Carroll, 171 W.Va. 516, 300 S.E.2d 629 (1983), we held that: In order to create a common law joint tenancy in real property the parties must receive an undivided interest under four conditions: 1) each party's undivided interest must vest at the same time; 2) each party must receive an undivided interest in the whole estate; 3) each party's possession must be coequal so that his property interest is the same as to the legal estate and duration; and 4) each party must receive his interest in the same title document. These four conditions for the creation of a common law joint tenancy are commonly abbreviated as the four unities of time, interest, possession and title. The main attribute of a common law joint tenancy was the right to survivorship. Id. We have recognized that the common law incident of survivorship in a joint tenancy has been altered by W. Va.Code § 36-1-19. [5] We have rather uniformly held that this statute abrogates the right of survivorship in a common law joint tenancy unless under W. Va.Code § 36-1-20, it manifestly appears from the tenor of the instrument that it was intended that the part of the one dying should then belong to the others. Id. at Syl. Pt. 3. [6] There is a strong statutory presumption in favor of construing joint tenancies as tenancies in common without the right of survivorship. However, this presumption may be overcome by a clear and convincing showing that the intention of the parties to create a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. Lieving v. Hadley, 188 W.Va. 197, 423 S.E.2d 600 (1992). We have also specifically held that West Virginia Code § 36-1-19 and § 36-1-20 do not abolish the common law requirement of the four unities in a joint tenancy. Syl. Pt. 5, Herring v. Carroll, 171 W.Va. 516, 300 S.E.2d 629. In Herring, we recognized that: Any act of a joint tenant which destroys one or more of its necessarily co-existent unities operates as a severance of the joint tenancy and extinguishes the right of survivorship. The act of one joint tenant in severing his interest in the property by alienation severs the joint tenancy to that extent, so that if there were but two tenants, the joint tenancy is terminated. Id. at 520, 633. This Court has not yet decided the effect of a divorce and property settlement agreement upon the questions of the survival of the joint tenancy. Appellants contend that several courts have found that a divorce decree itself destroys the unity of possession and, thus, causes a severance. Carson v. Ellis, 186 Kan. 112, 348 P.2d 807 (1960); In re Estate of Estelle, 122 Ariz. 109, 593 P.2d 663, 665 (1979); Estate of Seibert, 226 Cal.App.3d 338, 276 Cal.Rptr. 508, 510 (1990); Gaskie v. Hugins, 640 P.2d 248, 249 (Colo.App.Ct.1981). However, we decline to hold that a divorce decree, alone, causes a severance of a joint tenancy. The right of survivorship of a joint tenant does not arise out of the marriage relationship. Absent either an express intent to sever or conduct inconsistent with the continuation of the joint tenancy, the right of survivorship will continue after a dissolution of the marriage of joint tenants. In reviewing the property settlement agreement herein, it is illogical to believe it was the intent of the decedent to maintain the joint tenancy of the property and allow an unintended benefit to his ex-wife. The Appellants assert, and we agree, that the happenstance of the death of Mr. Young should not operate as a windfall to the Ms. McIntyre and leave the decedent's sole heir without any interest in the real estate. We observe that other jurisdictions have followed this reasoning in severing the tenancy. Wardlow v. Pozzi, 170 Cal.App.2d 208, 338 P.2d 564, 566 (1959)(hard to see how two persons in domestic difficulties, and desirous of settling their domestic problems would desire continuation of joint tenancy.); Rich v. Silver, 226 Cal.App.2d 60, 37 Cal.Rptr. 749, 751 (1964); Guilbeault v. St. Amand, No. 93569, 1993 WL 392943 at  (Conn.Super. Sept.28, 1993)(concluding that severance found when the conduct of the parties voluntarily evidenced their intention to sever the joint tenancy with the right of survivorship and hold their property as tenants in common); In re Marriage of Dowty, 146 Ill. App.3d 675, 100 Ill.Dec. 187, 496 N.E.2d 1252, 1254 (1986)(finding that trial testimony at divorce evidenced intent to sever because parties desired to sell and divide proceeds as soon as reasonably possible.); Brodzinsky v. Pulek, 75 N.J.Super. 40, 182 A.2d 149, 156 (1962)(finding severance where joint tenants by their conduct and course of dealing, mutually treated the subject mortgages as held by them as tenants in common.); Estate of Blair, 199 Cal.App.3d 161, 244 Cal. Rptr. 627, 632 n. 3 (1988)(court finding it unlikely that either spouse would desire to make the macabre gamble of being the survivor if one party died pending dissolution.) We believe that in circumstances of divorce, such as the present, joint tenants can agree to hold as tenants in common and thus sever the joint tenancy. Such an agreement can be express or implied from conduct of the parties inconsistent with holding in joint tenancy. Again, we observe similar decisions from other jurisdictions. See Dompke v. Dompke , 542 N.E.2d; Thomas v. Johnson, 12 Ill.App.3d 302, 297 N.E.2d 712 (1973); Mamalis v. Bornovas, 112 N.H. 423, 297 A.2d 660 (1972); Wardlow v. Pozzi, 170 Cal.App.2d 208, 338 P.2d 564. See generally 48a C.J.S. Joint Tenancy § 18; Tiffany on Real Property [3d Ed.] Vol. 2, § 425. A course of dealing by joint tenants in reference to the property jointly owned may by implication establish a severance, termination, or abandonment of the joint tenancy. What Acts By One or More of Joint Tenants Will Sever or Terminate the Tenancy, 64 A.L.R.2d 918, pp. 949-950 (1959). Acknowledging this standard, the question here becomes whether the conduct of the parties and the course of dealing between them is sufficient to indicate that all parties mutually treated their interests as belonging to them in common. 48 C.J.S. Joint Tenancy, § 4, p. 928. In the instant case, the terms of this agreement were sufficient to cause destruction of the four unities by implication. The language in the property settlement agreement and the action of the parties immediately thereafter evinces an agreement to dissolve the joint tenancy as they agreed to repair the real estate, list it, sell it, and split the proceeds when sold. The decedent was given exclusive possession of the property pending the sale. When we look at the context in which the agreement was made, the circumstances at the time, and the bargaining by equals with respect to the dissolution of their martial status, it is readily apparent herein that the couple did not make the agreement with the view that their rights of survivorship would be maintained subsequent to the divorce but prior to the property being sold. The conduct of the parties plainly evidenced their intention to sever the joint tenancy with the right of survivorship and hold their property as tenants in common. The lower court merged and incorporated the property settlement agreement into its final divorce order. Therefore, each party has been entitled to its enforcement since the entry of the divorce decree, and the lower court was required to enforce performance of those obligations under the final divorce order so as to fully execute its terms. To find that the joint tenancy remained unsevered would clearly be in direct contradiction to the intent of the property settlement agreement. Given our strong statutory presumption in favor of construing joint tenancies as tenancies in common without the right of survivorship, we believe that when the agreement of the parties evidences an intent to sever to joint tenancy, termination of the joint tenancy is the logical decision. We wish to make it clear that by holding that joint tenants in circumstances of divorce can agree, expressly or impliedly, to hold as tenants in common and thus sever the joint tenancy, this does not abolish the requirement of the traditional four common law unities for a joint tenancy. We continue to acknowledge, as we did in Herring v. Carroll, 171 W.Va. 516, 300 S.E.2d 629, that our statutory law, W. Va.Code § 36-1-19 and § 36-1-20, does not abolish the unities. The usefulness of the unities is better determined on a case-by-case basis. Subsequent to this decision, either tenant still retains the power to sever a joint tenancy by destroying one or more of the unities.