Jones v. Shannon
2009 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 595, 40 So. 3d 717, 2009 WL 4730809 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A provision in a divorce judgment that mandates the sale of property held in a joint tenancy and the equal division of the resulting proceeds severs the joint tenancy, destroying the right of survivorship and creating a tenancy in common.
Facts:
- In 1977, Bettye Shannon and Henry M. Jones, a married couple, acquired real property as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.
- In July 1988, Shannon and Henry divorced.
- Their separation agreement, which was incorporated into the divorce judgment, stipulated that the property would 'remain in joint ownership' until it could be sold, and that upon sale, the proceeds would be 'equally divided between the parties.'
- In July 1990, Henry purported to convey his interest in the property by deed to Aretha M. Jones, whom he later married.
- In November 2003, Henry died intestate before the property was sold.
Procedural Posture:
- Aretha Jones, as the personal representative of Henry Jones's estate, filed a petition in the Madison Circuit Court (trial court) against Bettye Shannon to quiet title and order a sale of the property.
- Both Jones and Shannon filed motions for a summary judgment.
- The trial court denied Jones's motion and entered a summary judgment in favor of Shannon.
- Jones, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Alabama Supreme Court.
- The Alabama Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
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 provision within a divorce judgment requiring that a jointly owned property be sold and its proceeds equally divided between the parties sever the joint tenancy with right of survivorship?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, Judge
Yes. A provision in a divorce judgment requiring the sale of property and equal division of the proceeds severs the joint tenancy. The court reasoned that the agreement to sell the property and divide the proceeds is fundamentally inconsistent with the intent to continue the right of survivorship, which is the defining feature of a joint tenancy. Citing Watford v. Hale, the court found that the 'entire tenor' of such an arrangement demonstrates an intent to terminate the survivorship aspect. The court rejected Shannon's argument that the phrase 'remain in joint ownership' preserved the joint tenancy, explaining that the term 'jointly' is consistent with a tenancy in common and that 'remain' merely indicated an intent for both parties to retain an ownership interest, not necessarily to preserve the specific form of that ownership.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the principle in Alabama law that the intent of the parties, as expressed in a divorce agreement, is the dispositive factor in severing a joint tenancy. It establishes that a provision for the sale and equal division of proceeds is conclusive evidence of an intent to sever, effectively transforming the ownership into a tenancy in common. This precedent provides a clear guideline for drafting separation agreements and for resolving property disputes after a co-owner's death, prioritizing the substance of the agreement (sale and division) over potentially ambiguous phrasing like 'joint ownership'.
