Mann v. Bradley
535 P.2d 213 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A joint tenancy is severed and converted into a tenancy in common when the joint tenants enter into a mutual agreement that is inconsistent with the right of survivorship, such as a contract to sell the property at a future date and divide the proceeds.
Facts:
- In 1954, Betty Rea Mann and Aaron C. Mann acquired a family residence as joint tenants during their marriage.
- The couple divorced in 1971 and entered into a property settlement agreement.
- The agreement stipulated that the residence would be sold and the proceeds divided equally upon the occurrence of one of three future events: Mrs. Mann's remarriage, the youngest child reaching age 21, or mutual agreement.
- The agreement also stated the property would 'remain in the joint names of the parties.'
- Betty Rea Mann continued to live in the residence with her children after the divorce.
- In October 1972, Betty Rea Mann died before any of the three triggering events for the sale had occurred.
- Following her death, Aaron C. Mann claimed sole ownership of the property based on the right of survivorship inherent in the joint tenancy.
Procedural Posture:
- The administratrix of Betty Rea Mann's estate and her children filed an action to quiet title against Aaron C. Mann in the district court of Morgan County (trial court).
- The trial court entered a judgment quieting title in the children, finding they held an undivided one-half interest as tenants in common.
- Aaron C. Mann, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Colorado Supreme Court (highest court) granted Aaron C. Mann's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 divorce property settlement agreement that provides for the future sale of a jointly owned property and the division of proceeds terminate the joint tenancy, thereby extinguishing the right of survivorship?
Opinions:
Majority - Hodges, J.
Yes, a divorce property settlement agreement providing for the future sale of property and division of proceeds terminates a joint tenancy. The modern approach focuses on the parties' intent rather than the strict destruction of one of the four unities. An agreement between joint tenants may be inferred from the manner in which they deal with the property. Here, the agreement to ultimately sell the property and divide the proceeds is inconsistent with the right of survivorship, which is the essential feature (sine qua non) of a joint tenancy. The provision that the property 'shall remain in the joint names' is not dispositive, as this is also consistent with a tenancy in common. The court reasoned that it is highly unlikely that parties in the midst of a divorce would intend for their ex-spouse to inherit the entirety of their shared property.
Analysis:
This decision reflects the modern judicial trend of moving away from the rigid, common-law 'four unities' test for severing a joint tenancy, focusing instead on the parties' intent. It establishes that an executory contract—an agreement to do something in the future—can be sufficient to sever a joint tenancy if the terms of the agreement are inconsistent with the core elements of that tenancy, particularly the right of survivorship. The ruling clarifies that the intent to sever can be inferred from the parties' conduct and the overall 'tenor' of their agreement, even without an explicit statement of severance. This impacts property settlements in divorce cases, requiring attorneys to be explicit if the parties intend to preserve the right of survivorship.
Unlock the full brief for Mann v. Bradley