Hoover v. Smith
248 Va. 6, 444 S.E.2d 546 (1994)
Rule of Law:
Under Virginia law, a deed conveying property to grantees "as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common" is insufficient on its own to manifest the clear intent necessary to create a right of survivorship and overcome the statutory abolition of such rights.
Facts:
- In 1928, a deed conveyed one acre of land in Rockingham County to Add Shoemaker and his wife, Bessie Shoemaker.
- The deed contained a provision stating the grantees were to hold the land "as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common."
- Add Shoemaker died intestate in 1951, survived by Bessie and their children.
- After Add's death, Bessie Shoemaker conveyed a 0.542-acre portion of the land to their son, Wilmer A. Shoemaker, purporting to transfer the entire interest.
- Wilmer Shoemaker later died, having devised this tract of land in his will to Shelby Jean Moubray.
- In 1988, Moubray conveyed the tract to David Martin Smith and Vivian Secrist Smith.
Procedural Posture:
- The children of Add and Bessie Shoemaker (the Hoovers) filed a bill of complaint in the trial court against other heirs and the current property owners (the Smiths).
- The Hoovers sought to have the property sold and the proceeds divided, claiming they inherited a one-half interest from their father, Add Shoemaker.
- The Smiths filed a demurrer, arguing that the 1928 deed created a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, meaning Bessie Shoemaker became the sole owner upon Add's death.
- The trial court sustained the demurrers and dismissed the Hoovers' case with prejudice.
- The Hoovers (appellants) were awarded an appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia to review the trial court's dismissal.
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 conveying land to grantees 'as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common' manifestly show an intent to create a right of survivorship sufficient to overcome Virginia's statutory abolition of survivorship under Code § 55-21?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Carrico
No. The language in the deed does not manifestly show an intent to create a right of survivorship. Virginia Code § 55-20 abolishes the right of survivorship for joint tenants by default, making their interests pass to their heirs as if they were tenants in common. An exception under § 55-21 applies only when it 'manifestly appears' from the instrument that survivorship was intended. The term 'manifest' means clear, obvious, and unmistakable. The phrase 'as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common' is uncertain and susceptible to more than one meaning, as a joint tenancy without survivorship can exist. Because the language does not explicitly state an intent for the part of the one dying to belong to the other, it fails the 'manifestly appears' test, and the statutory abolition of survivorship controls.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the high threshold required to create a right of survivorship in Virginia. It serves as a clear warning to legal practitioners that relying on traditional common-law phrasing is insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption against survivorship. To ensure survivorship, drafters must use explicit and unambiguous language, such as 'with right of survivorship,' to make the intent 'manifest.' The ruling prioritizes the statutory scheme of passing property to heirs over common-law conventions, thereby protecting heirs unless a contrary intent is made indisputably clear in the governing instrument.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hoover v. Smith (1994)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"