King v. Greene
153 A.2d 49, 75 A.L.R. 2d 1153, 30 N.J. 395 (1959)
Rule of Law:
Under the Married Women's Act, a spouse's interest in a tenancy by the entirety, including the right of survivorship, is fully alienable and subject to execution and sale by creditors for that spouse's separate debts.
Facts:
- In 1913, Marie King acquired title to three lots in Shrewsbury, New Jersey.
- In 1931, pursuant to a court decree resulting from a dispute with her husband Philip, the property was legally established as a tenancy by the entirety between Marie and Philip King.
- In 1932, an execution was issued to satisfy a money judgment against Marie King individually.
- A sheriff's deed conveyed all of Marie's right, title, and interest in the property to John V. Crowell.
- In 1933, Philip King and Crowell (the purchaser of Marie's interest) conveyed their respective interests to a third party, Smock.
- Philip King died in 1938.
- In 1946, Smock conveyed the interest to the defendants, Joseph and Mabel Greene.
- In 1957, Marie King claimed sole ownership of the property, arguing that the 1932 sheriff's sale only conveyed her life interest and not her right of survivorship.
Procedural Posture:
- Marie King filed an action for possession of lands in the Superior Court, Law Division.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Marie King.
- The defendants appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey certified the cause on its own motion before the Appellate Division could hear the argument.
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 purchaser at an execution sale under a judgment against a wife in a tenancy by the entirety acquire the wife's right of survivorship?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Burling
Yes, the execution sale conveyed the wife's right of survivorship to the purchaser. The Court held that at common law, a husband in a tenancy by the entirety had the power to alienate his right of survivorship, which was essentially a fee simple subject to defeasance. The Married Women's Act was intended to create equality between spouses, endowing the wife with the same capacity to hold and convey property as the husband. Therefore, if the husband could alienate his right of survivorship at common law, the wife must now be able to do the same, and consequently, her interest must be subject to execution for her debts. The Court overruled prior contrary decisions, noting that preventing creditors from reaching the right of survivorship creates an unjustified delay in satisfaction of debts.
Dissent - Chief Justice Weintraub
No, the right of survivorship should not be subject to execution sale. The Chief Justice argued that a tenancy by the entirety is a unique estate based on the fiction of marital unity where neither spouse owns a separate interest in the fee. He contended that the so-called "right of survivorship" is too speculative and contingent to be sold effectively. Forcing such a sale results in a gambling event where the purchaser buys a chance rather than a solid interest, leading to low prices that benefit neither the creditor nor the debtor, and effectively destroys the protective purpose of the estate.
Dissent - Justice Hall
No, the law should remain that the right of survivorship is not legally alienable. Justice Hall argued that the legal community and property owners have long relied on established precedent that the right of survivorship in a tenancy by the entirety cannot be involuntarily alienated. He disputed the majority's interpretation of the common law, asserting that a husband's conveyance was only effective via equitable estoppel, which does not apply to execution sales at law. He believed changing this rule retrospectively would upset many land titles.
Analysis:
This decision is legally significant because it fundamentally altered the nature of the tenancy by the entirety in New Jersey, making it less protective of the marital unit and more accessible to creditors. By equating the wife's rights (and liabilities) with the husband's common law powers under the Married Women's Act, the court established that the "right of survivorship" is a present, vested interest subject to defeasance, rather than a mere expectancy. This ruling implies that creditors can force the sale of a debtor-spouse's full potential interest in the marital home, leaving the non-debtor spouse as a tenant in common with a stranger during their joint lives, with the stranger potentially becoming the sole owner if the debtor-spouse survives.
