Melenky v. . Melen
1922 N.Y. LEXIS 834, 134 N.E. 822, 233 N.Y. 19 (1922)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A wife's inchoate right of dower does not attach to a husband's equitable right to compel the reconveyance of land held under an oral trust. This equitable right is a chose in action, not an estate of inheritance to which dower can attach.
Facts:
- In December 1913, Reuben Melenky conveyed land to his son, Asher P. Melenky (Melen), for management purposes, with an oral promise from the son to reconvey the property upon demand.
- In August 1914, Reuben Melenky married the plaintiff.
- Prior to the marriage, Reuben informed the plaintiff that he was the owner of valuable real estate, and she relied on this statement in consenting to the marriage.
- Four years after the marriage, Reuben requested that Asher reconvey the property.
- Asher refused to reconvey full ownership (the fee), instead executing a deed for only a life estate to his father.
- Reuben, described as being under pressure of age, infirmity, and want, accepted the life estate deed.
- Asher's stated purpose for retaining the fee was to deprive the plaintiff of her future dower rights in the property.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff (wife) filed a complaint against her husband (Reuben) and his son (Asher) in the New York Special Term (the trial court of first instance).
- The son, Asher Melen, demurred to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The Special Term sustained the demurrer and entered an interlocutory judgment for the son.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of the Special Term, finding the complaint sufficient.
- The son then appealed the Appellate Division's reversal to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest 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 wife's inchoate dower right attach to land that her husband conveyed to a third party under an oral promise to reconvey, thereby allowing her to compel a reconveyance that the husband himself has not sought?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, J.
No. A wife's inchoate dower right does not attach to a chose in action, but only to an estate of which her husband is seized. New York's Real Property Law states that a widow is endowed with a third part of lands whereof her husband was 'seized of an estate of inheritance' during the marriage. Since Reuben Melenky had conveyed the property, he was no longer seized of an estate. While a court of equity could potentially remedy the son's abuse of confidence by compelling a reconveyance, until such a decree is issued, the husband's interest is not an estate but merely an 'obligation, a chose in action.' Dower does not attach to choses in action. The law will not create an estate simply to subject it to the incident of dower. The right to sue to undo the transaction belongs to the husband, and he may elect whether to pursue it or not. The wife cannot make that election for him or overrule his choice to abandon the claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the strict legal requirements for the attachment of dower rights, distinguishing between an actual legal estate ('seizin') and a mere equitable right to sue ('chose in action'). It establishes the principle that dower is a derivative right, wholly dependent on the husband's legal title, not his potential or equitable claims. The ruling prevents a spouse from independently enforcing a personal legal right belonging to the other spouse, even when it affects their own financial interests. This reinforces the idea that certain legal claims are personal and cannot be asserted by third parties, including a spouse seeking to protect a future property interest.
