Kurpiel v. Kurpiel
50 Misc. 2d 604, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2077, 271 N.Y.S.2d 114 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conveyance of real property to a husband, wife, and a third party that expressly states they shall take the property "jointly and not as tenants in common" creates a joint tenancy among all three grantees, overriding the legal presumption that a husband and wife take their interest as tenants by the entirety.
Facts:
- Prior to June 1, 1955, plaintiff Joseph Kurpiel was the sole owner of a parcel of real property.
- On June 1, 1955, Joseph Kurpiel executed a deed, prepared by an attorney, conveying the property to himself, his wife Jenny Kurpiel, and their son Edward Kurpiel.
- The deed specified that the three grantees were to take the property "jointly and not as tenants in common."
- A dispute later arose among the parties, leading Joseph Kurpiel to seek a division of the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Joseph Kurpiel filed an action for partition of real property in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County, a trial-level court.
- Defendants Jenny Kurpiel and Edward Kurpiel filed an answer asserting two affirmative defenses.
- The plaintiff moved for summary judgment and to strike the defendants' defenses.
- The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
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 that conveys property from a husband to himself, his wife, and their son "jointly and not as tenants in common" create a joint tenancy among the three individuals, thereby allowing any one of them to bring a legal action for partition?
Opinions:
Majority - Pittoni, J.
Yes. A deed that conveys property to a husband, his wife, and their son "jointly and not as tenants in common" creates a joint tenancy among the three, which is subject to partition. The court reasoned that the explicit language in the deed, which was prepared by an attorney, clearly expressed the grantor's intent to create a joint tenancy. This express intent overcomes the common-law presumption that a conveyance to a husband and wife creates a tenancy by the entirety. The court distinguished this case from others where the word "jointly" was used in wills drafted by laypersons, as an attorney is presumed to understand the technical legal distinction of the terms. Absent the specific language, the husband and wife would have held a one-half interest as tenants by the entirety; however, the grantor's clear and express intent in the deed is controlling. Therefore, the three grantees each hold a one-third interest as joint tenants.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental principle that a grantor's express intent, when clearly stated in a deed, will override common-law or statutory presumptions about the creation of estates in land, such as the tenancy by the entirety between spouses. It highlights the critical importance of precise legal drafting, giving significant weight to language used by an attorney who understands its technical meaning. The decision clarifies that specific language can create a simple joint tenancy among all grantees, including a married couple, preventing the formation of a more complex ownership structure that would otherwise be presumed by law.
