Court Opinion

ID: 9667054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:34:03.966121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:34.509512
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice (Dissenting). My dissent goes to that portion of the majority opinion which holds that a husband, already owning the property, can create an entirety estate in such property by direct conveyance to himself and wife. In so holding, this Court has done violence to all of our previous cases on the subject; and these previous cases have become rules of property. Those interested in the reasons for and incidents of estates by entirety may consult the following cases of this Court: Robinson v. Eagle, 29 Ark. 202; Branch v. Polk, 61 Ark. 388, 33 S. W. 424, 30 L. R. A. 324; Roulston v. Hall, 66 Ark. 305, 50 S. W. 690; Robertson v. Robinson, 87 Ark. 367, 112 S. W. 883; Parrish v. Parrish, 151 Ark. 161, 235 S. W. 792; Dennis v. Dennis, 152 Ark. 187, 238 S. W. 15; Stewart v. Tucker, 208 Ark. 612, 188 S. W. 2d 125; Ryan v. Roop, 214 Ark. 699, 217 S. W. 2d 916; Weir v. Brigham, 218 Ark. 354, 236 S. W. 2d 435. There are other cases which are collected in West’s Arkansas Digest, “Husband and Wife,” § 14. As essential to the creation of an estate by the entirety we have always held—until this present opinion—that “there must co-exist four unities, (1) unity of interest. (2) unity of title. (3) unity of time and (4) unity of possession.” In Stewart v. Tucker, 208 Ark. 612, 188 S. W. 2d 125, we listed these unities and quoted further from 33 C. J. 907: “ ‘ That is, each of the owners must have one and the same interest conveyed by the same act or instrument, to vest at one and the same time . . . and each must have the entire possession of every parcel of the property held in joint tenancy as well as of the whole.’ ” We have repeatedly held that the four unities—interest, title, time and possession-—must be present before an estate by entirety could be created. Thus in McGraw v. Berry, 152 Ark. 452, 238 S. W. 618, we held that where a co-tenant owned an interest in the land and had all the other co-tenants convey the land to him and his wife, such conveyance by the other co-tenants did not create an estate by the entirety because there were not present the four unities essential to create such an estate. Again in Stewart v. Tucker, 208 Ark. 616, 188 S. W. 2d 125, we held that an estate by entirety did not result from an agreement between a wife and her husband to the effect that the husband would continue to make payments on a contract made with his wife, and that the survivor as between the husband and wife would get the fee. Finally, in the recent case of Wier v. Brigham, 218 Ark. 354, 236 S. W. 2d 435, we held that the execution by husband and wife of a deed to themselves of land owned by the husband could not create an estate by entirety since the four essential unities, of interest, time, title and possession, were not present. Thus in a series of cases, we have held that an estate by entirety could not be created except when the title came to husband and wife by deed from a third person. Now—in the present case the majority is holding that the estate may be created by the husband—already the owner—conveying to himself and his wife. Such holding overrules our previous cases. In an attempt to avoid or explain away these previous cases, the majority opinion offers two arguments: first, the majority says that Act 86 of 1935 (now § 50-413 Ark. Stats.) allows the husband to convey directly to the wife, and that such act is applicable here. Act 86 of 1935 reads: “Any deed of conveyance of real property located in this State, executed after the passage of this act, by a married man directly to his wife or by a married woman directly to her husband, shall be construed as conveying to the grantee named in such deed the entire interest of the grantor in the property conveyed, or the interest specified in the deed, as fully and to all intents and purposes as if the marital relation did not exist between the parties to such deed.” This Act, in allowing a husband to convey directly to his wife, does not change the essentials for the creation of an estate by the entirety, which essentials are the four unities. These do not exist when the conveyance is made direct from the husband, as owner, to himself and wife. The same argument now used by the majority was stated and answered in the case of Wier v. Brigham, 218 Ark. 354, 236 S. W. 2d 435, wherein this Court, without recorded dissent, said: “In the briefs attention is called to Act 86 of 1935, now found in Sec. 50-413, Ark. Stats., which allows spouses to conve3r directly to each other. From that Statute, appellant urges that an estate by entirety can be created by such a conveyance as is involved in this case. We reject that contention. An estate by the entirety partakes of the nature of a joint tenancy to the extent of requiring the concurrence of the four unities of interest, time, title and possession, as previously mentioned; and these unities did not concur in the deed here in question. The interest of a husband in the estate by entirety can be conveyed to his wife by virtue of the said Act 86 of 1935; such was our holding in Ryan v. Roop, 214 Ark. 699, 217 S. AY 2d 916. But an estate by .the entirety can come into existence only when the required essentials are observed, just as is pointed out by Mr. Justice Robins in Stewart v. Tucker, supra. Those essentials did not exist in Stewart v. Tucker and do not exist in the case at bar. ’ ’ Therefore, the argument of the majority based on Act 86-of 1935 was answered in Wier v. Brigham. Secondly, the majority after-trying to distinguish the case at bar from Stewart v. Tucker, supra, and Wier v. Brigham, supra, finally admits that this Court wants to take “the modern view.” Here is the language of the opinion: “The modern view taken by the New York cases has spread rapidly to other jurisdictions. (See Ann. 62 A. L. R. 518 and 137 A. L. R. 350.) Among the many favorable comments from leading students in the field is this excerpt from Tiffany on Real Property . . .” Now this taking of “the modern view” fills me with great apprehension: for this Court is “deliberately leaving our old holdings—McGraw v. Berry, Stewart v. Tucker and Wier v. Brigham for “the modern view” taken by the New York cases. Our holdings—on the necessity of the existence of the four essentials to create an estate by the entirety—have become a rule of property in this state; and lawyers and laymen have conducted their dealings on the justified expectation that this rule of property would not be changed retrospectively. 54 C. J. 1110 defines a rule of property: “A settled legal principle governing the ownership and devolution of property; the decisions of the highest court of a state when they relate to and settle some principle of local law-directly applicable to title. In the plural, those rules governing the descent, transfer, or sale of property, and the rules which affect the title and possession thereto.” If the public should become dissatisfied with our rules of property and should want to adopt “the modern view”, then the legislature can pass an Act stating that from the effective date of such act, a conveyance direct from the hnsband to the husband and wife shall create an estate by entirety. Should the legislature enact such a law it would operate prospectively only. But when the Court overrules its previous holdings on property rights and adopts a “modern view”, the effect is to change the law retrospectively. The effect of the new-holding is to say that all the previous holdings were not the law, but mere heresies. A classic example of the terrific injustices which can be done real estate titles by this Court changing rules of property is mirrored in Carter Oil Co. v. Weil, 209 Ark. 653, 192 S. W. 2d 215. Briefly that case involved this situation: for many years this Court held as reflected in Cole v. Collie, 131 Ark. 103, 198 S. W. 710, that if a reservation appeared in the habendum clause of the deed and was in conflict with the granting clause, then such reservation was void. But in Beasley v. Shinn, 201 Ark. 31, 144 S. W. 2d 710, 131 A. L. R. 1234, the Court overruled Cole v. Collie and the older cases and gave effect to a reservation which appeared only in ■the habendum clause of the deed even though in conflict with the granting clause. In other words, in Beasley v. Shinn the Court overruled the rule of property that had existed in Cole v. Collie. Before the decision in Beasley v. Shinn, one of the most thorough title lawyers of this State examined an abstract in which was a deed that had a reservation only in the liabenckm clause,- and the lawyer, in reliance on the opinion of this Court, wrote on the page of the abstract: “Under the authority of Cole v. Collie, 131 Ark. 103, 198 S. W. 710, our opinion is that the reservation is void.” But in Carter Oil Company v. Weil, 209 Ark. 653, 192 S. W. 2d 215, we held that when in Beasley v. Shinn we overruled Cole v. Collie, then the old holdings became a mere heresy and we quoted from Blackstone’s Commentaries: that it is not the established custom of the realm, as has been previously determined.” “For if it be found -that the former decision is manifestly absurd or unjust, it is declared, not that such a sentence was bad, law, but that it was not law. that is, Thus the opinion of a lawyer who had relied on our own cases became wrong through no fault of his. Such a situation is not one of. which any court should boast. Yet the majority is doing the same thing in the case at bar. In Wier v. Brigham, 218 Ark., 354, 236 S. W. 2d 435, we said: “In the briefs attention is called to Act 86 of 1935, now found in § 50-413, Ark. Stats., which allows spouses to convey directly to each other. From that Statute, appellant urges that an estate by entirety can be created by such a conveyance as is involved in this case. We reject that contention. An estate by the entirety partakes of the nature of a joint tenancy to the extent of requiring the concurrence of the four unities of interest, time, title and possession, as previously mentioned; and these unities did not concur in the deed here in question. The interest of a husband in the estate -by entirety can be conveyed to his wife by virtue of the said Act 86 of 1935; such was our holding in Ryan v. Roop, 214 Ark. 699, 217 S. W. 2d 916. But an estate by the entirety can come into existence only when the required essentials are observed, just as is pointed out by Mr. Justice Robins in Stewart v. Tucker, supra. Those essentials did not exist in Stewart v. Tucker and do not exist in the case at har. ’ ’ Now less than one year later, the majority in the case at bar is in effect overruling Wier v. Brigham, Stewart v. Tucker and all the previous cases on the point, and is adopting “the modern view”, in the case of Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, 88 L. Ed. 987, 64 S. Ct. 757, Mr. Justice Roberts in dissenting from a holding which overruled previous cases used this language, which is worthy of repetition: “The reason for my concern is that the instant decision, overruling that announced about nine years ago, tends to bring adjudications of this tribunal into the same class as a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only. I have no assurance, in view of current decisions, that the opinion announced today may no,t be shortly repudiated and overruled by justices who deem they have new light on the subject. . . . ££It is regrettable that in an era marked by doubt and confusion, an era whose greatest need is steadfastness of thought and purpose, this court, which has been looked to as exhibiting consistency in adjudication, and a steadiness which would hold the balance even in the face of temporary ebbs and flows of opinion, should now itself become the breeder of fresh doubt and confusion in the public mind as to the stability of our institutions. ’ ’ If we make a habit of changing our rules of property with retrospective effect, then the quoted language may some day be applied to this Court. Heaven forbid! I feel so seriously on this matter of overruling cases involving rules of property that I register this dissent.