Court Opinion

ID: 9528018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:36:20.642064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:24.234308
License: Public Domain

Simmons, C. J.,
dissenting.
The court holds that the judgment is a lien on an “undivided half of the real estate.”
The chain of title of this property may be briefly stated. Edward Hein and Hilda Hein received title to this property as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
According to the authority quoted by the court, with which I agree, each had “an undivided share of the whole estate” and not “the whole of an undivided share.”
The judgment attached to that “undivided share of the whole estate” as the court holds.
*192Mr. and Mrs. Hein conveyed to Mrs. Hein. The conveyance of necessity was subject to the judgment against the “undivided share of the whole estate.”
The conveyance created an estate “in fee simple” in Mrs. Hein. The court so holds, for it quiets title in her devisee “in fee simple.”
The court then carves out of that fee simple title the “whole of an undivided share” and holds that the lien attached to it. That creates the attribute of a tenancy in common.
Such an estate is not shown to have existed in this chain of title until this judgment appears. Edward H. Hein never had a tenancy in common interest. He never owned “an undivided half” of the real estate. His conveyance did not create such an interest. He was the owner first as a joint tenant and then after the deed held no interest in the title. There never was a whole of an undivided share to which the lien of the judgment could attach.
I would hold that the judgment attached to the estate and the only estate created by the deed of Mr. and Mrs. Hein. That estate is the fee simple estate which the court recognized and quiets in Mrs. Hein’s devisee.