Margarite v. Ewald
381 A.2d 480 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conveyance of real property to three individuals, two of whom are explicitly identified as husband and wife, creates a tenancy by the entireties in the married couple for a one-half interest in the property. This marital unit then holds its interest as a tenant in common with the third individual, who holds the other one-half interest.
Facts:
- On January 16, 1967, a deed conveyed real estate to 'John Ewald and Mary B. Ewald his wife and Joseph Ewald ... as tenants in common with right of survivorship.'
- The appellee is the son of Mary B. Ewald from her first marriage.
- On November 8, 1973, Mary B. Ewald died intestate, leaving her son (the appellee) and her husband, John Ewald, as her sole heirs.
- On August 20, 1974, John Ewald died, bequeathing his entire estate to his brother, George Ewald.
- Joseph Ewald, the third grantee in the 1967 deed, is still living.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellee, Mary B. Ewald's son, filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) to interpret the deed.
- The trial court, on stipulated facts, held that the deed created a tenancy in common among the three grantees, giving each a one-third interest.
- Based on its holding, the trial court ruled that the appellee was entitled to a one-sixth interest in the property as his intestate share of his mother's estate.
- The court en banc affirmed the trial court's determination.
- The appellants (representing the interests of John and Joseph Ewald) appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court).
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 property to three people, two of whom are explicitly identified as a married couple, 'as tenants in common with right of survivorship,' create a tenancy in common with each grantee holding a one-third share?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobs, J.
No. A deed conveying property to three people where two are identified as a married couple does not create a tenancy in common among the three individuals, but rather creates two ownership units: the married couple holding a one-half interest as tenants by the entireties, and the third individual holding a one-half interest as a tenant in common with the couple. The court's reasoning is that there is a strong presumption that a conveyance to a husband and wife creates a tenancy by the entireties. The explicit language in the deed identifying the grantees as 'John Ewald and Mary B. Ewald his wife' is not mere surplusage but is the classic form for creating such a tenancy. This specific identification, combined with the grammatical structure using a 'double and,' indicates an intent to create two distinct units of ownership—the marital unit and the third individual. Therefore, upon Mary B. Ewald's death, her interest automatically vested in her surviving spouse, John Ewald, by operation of law, and did not pass to her estate. The contradictory phrase 'with right of survivorship' was deemed not sufficiently clear to overcome the statutory presumption against survivorship in a tenancy in common between the marital unit and Joseph Ewald.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the interpretation of ambiguous deeds involving both married and unmarried co-grantees. It strongly reinforces the presumption of a tenancy by the entireties for married couples, showing that specific identifying language like 'his wife' will often override other contradictory or confusing terms in the deed. The case establishes a hierarchy of interpretive principles, prioritizing the legal significance of the marital unit over technically inconsistent phrases like 'tenants in common with right of survivorship.' This precedent guides future courts to partition ownership into units (e.g., a couple and an individual) rather than simply dividing it per capita when a marital relationship is explicitly stated in the conveyance.
Unlock the full brief for Margarite v. Ewald