Downing v. Downing
1992 Md. LEXIS 86, 326 Md. 468, 606 A.2d 208 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Maryland, a deed that expressly states property is conveyed "as joint tenants" is sufficient to create a joint tenancy, and such a joint tenancy is not severed by a pre-existing non-exclusive farming agreement or by a mortgage executed by all joint tenants.
Facts:
- In 1948, Helen Downing and her husband John Downing Sr. bought an 88-acre farm in Carroll County, Maryland.
- After John Sr. died, Helen became the sole owner of the family farm.
- Prior to August 7, 1972, Helen, assisted by her son John Jr., negotiated an oral agreement with John Myers, allowing Myers to grow and harvest crops on arable portions of the property in exchange for payments to Helen, without granting Myers exclusive possession.
- On August 7, 1972, Helen conveyed the farm to a "straw man," Stanford Hoff, who immediately reconveyed the property "unto HELEN S. DOWNING, widow, and JOHN ROBERT DOWNING, as joint tenants, their heirs and assigns, forever in fee simple."
- Following the August 1972 conveyances, Helen, with John Jr.'s concurrence, continued to receive all farm rent payments from Myers, and John Jr. consulted with Myers about cultivation methods.
- On October 31, 1985, Helen (now Helen S. Cullison) and John Jr. executed a mortgage of the property in favor of the Union National Bank, which described them as holding the property "as joint tenants."
- Helen died on January 15, 1987, leaving a will that made specific bequests but did not mention the farm, with the residue of her estate to go half to John Jr. and half to her daughter Bonnie Lynn Downing.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 29, 1988, Bonnie, as personal representative of Helen's estate, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, seeking to have the August 7, 1972 deed construed as creating a tenancy in common.
- John Jr. did not file an answer to the complaint, leading to an order of default being granted against him.
- A master took testimony to determine the relief Bonnie would be entitled to, where John Jr. appeared with counsel, testified, and introduced evidence.
- The master concluded that no joint tenancy was ever created because the right of survivorship was not explicitly spelled out, and that the mortgage and farming arrangement would have destroyed a joint tenancy in any event.
- The circuit court heard John Jr.'s exceptions to the master's report.
- The circuit court concluded that the deed did create a joint tenancy but that the subsequent mortgage executed by both joint tenants severed it, thereby ruling that the farm was owned by John Jr. and Helen's estate as tenants in common.
- John Jr. appealed the circuit court's order to the Court of Special Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland (highest court) granted certiorari on its own motion prior to consideration by the Court of Special Appeals.
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 deed stating property is conveyed "as joint tenants, their heirs and assigns, forever in fee simple" sufficiently create a joint tenancy under Maryland law, and if so, do either a pre-existing oral farming agreement or a subsequent mortgage executed by both joint tenants sever this joint tenancy?
Opinions:
Majority - Chasanow, Judge
Yes, a conveyance using the language "as joint tenants, their heirs and assigns, forever in fee simple" is sufficient to create a joint tenancy in Maryland, and neither the farming agreement with Myers nor the subsequent mortgage executed by both Helen and John Jr. severed this joint tenancy. The court affirmed that while Maryland law (Md.Code (1957, 1972 Repl. Vol.), Article 50, § 9, now Real Property Article, § 2-117) disfavors joint tenancies and requires a clear expression of intent, the words "as joint tenants" explicitly satisfy this statutory requirement. The court in McManus v. Summers established that a clear manifestation of intent, even if the exact legal term used was incorrect (e.g., tenancy by entirety for unmarried persons), would be effectuated. The inclusion of "heirs and assigns" does not negate the joint tenancy, as these are merely descriptive words for a fee simple estate. Regarding severance, the court determined that the existing farming agreement with Myers did not destroy the unities of interest or possession because a joint tenancy can exist in an encumbered estate, and a temporary division of income or possession with consent, without intent to partition, does not sever the unities. Furthermore, the court held that a mortgage executed by all joint tenants does not sever the joint tenancy, unlike a mortgage by a single joint tenant which severs the unities of interest and title. When all joint tenants join, the unities remain intact, and there is no reason for severance. The court cited Gardner v. Gardner and similar cases from other jurisdictions for this principle.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the creation and severance of joint tenancies in Maryland, emphasizing that specific language (e.g., 'as joint tenants') is sufficient to express intent despite the statutory disfavor for such estates. It provides critical guidance on how common financial arrangements, like mortgages, interact with joint tenancy rights. The ruling distinguishes between actions by a single joint tenant and those taken by all co-tenants, underscoring that joint actions generally do not disrupt the unities essential to a joint tenancy, thereby protecting the right of survivorship. This is significant for estate planning and real property law, assuring that the intent of grantors and joint owners is upheld in scenarios involving encumbrances or shared property use.
