Alexander v. Boyer
253 A.2d 359, 253 Md. 511 (1969)
Rule of Law:
A lease executed by one joint tenant for a term of years severs the joint tenancy by destroying the unities of interest and possession, thereby converting the estate into a tenancy in common.
Facts:
- On February 27, 1945, Emery D. Lease conveyed his farm to himself and his two daughters, Helen M. Boyer and Evelyn V. Lease, as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- Over the years, the three joint tenants sold several parcels of the land and deposited the proceeds into a joint bank account.
- Emery D. Lease died on October 9, 1961, leaving Helen and Evelyn as the surviving joint tenants.
- On January 8, 1962, Evelyn leased her entire right, title, and interest in the farm to Mehrl T. Boyer, Helen's husband, for a term beginning January 1, 1962, and ending March 31, 1963.
- Subsequent to this lease, Helen and Evelyn (along with their respective husbands) entered into other transactions, including a new lease to a third party and an agreement to sell two acres which referred to them as 'joint tenants' in an option clause.
- Helen died on July 7, 1966, leaving a will naming her husband Mehrl as her sole devisee.
- Evelyn died intestate on May 16, 1967, leaving her husband Edwin M. Alexander as her only heir at law.
Procedural Posture:
- Mehrl T. Boyer (executor and sole devisee of Helen M. Boyer) filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, the trial court of first instance.
- The defendant was Edwin M. Alexander (administrator and heir of Evelyn V. Lease Alexander).
- The trial court chancellor ruled in favor of Mehrl, declaring that the joint tenancy had been severed prior to Helen's death, converting the ownership to a tenancy in common.
- The chancellor based the severance on a later contract to sell the property, not on the lease executed by Evelyn.
- The trial court ordered Edwin to pay Mehrl one-half of the net profits from the farm and divided the costs.
- Edwin M. Alexander, as the losing party, appealed the chancellor's decree to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, making him the appellant and Mehrl T. Boyer the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lease executed by one joint tenant of her interest in a property to a third party for a specific term sever the joint tenancy with right of survivorship?
Opinions:
Majority - Barnes, J.
Yes, a lease executed by one joint tenant of her interest in the property severs the joint tenancy. A joint tenancy requires the coexistence of the four unities: time, title, interest, and possession. When Evelyn leased her interest, she conveyed her present possessory rights for the term of the lease, which changed her interest from a present interest to a reversionary interest. This action destroyed the unity of interest and the unity of possession, which is sufficient to sever the joint tenancy. Once a severance occurs, the parties become tenants in common, and the right of survivorship is permanently extinguished. Subsequent actions or documents referring to the parties as 'joint tenants' do not recreate the joint tenancy, as that would require a new, express conveyance.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle in Maryland that joint tenancies are disfavored and can be easily severed. The court adopts the view that a lease for a term of years, which transfers a possessory interest, is sufficient to destroy the unities of interest and possession, thus terminating the right of survivorship. This holding provides a clear, albeit strict, rule that any conveyance of an interest by a joint tenant, even one short of a fee simple transfer, severs the tenancy. The ruling impacts estate planning and property law by highlighting the fragility of joint tenancies and reinforcing that tenants who wish to maintain survivorship rights must avoid altering their interests in the property independently.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Alexander v. Boyer (1969)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"