Robinson v. Trousdale County
516 S.W.2d 626 (1974)
Rule of Law:
The common law disability of coverture is abolished in Tennessee, and tenants by the entirety, regardless of sex, now possess equal rights to the use, control, income, and possession of the property. Neither spouse may unilaterally sell, encumber, or alienate the property without the other's consent, except for their individual right of survivorship.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Robinson, a married couple, owned a parcel of real estate as tenants by the entirety.
- Trousdale County required a portion of the Robinsons' land for the purpose of widening an adjacent public road.
- Mr. Robinson, acting alone and without his wife's participation or consent, executed a deed conveying the required portion of the property to Trousdale County.
- Trousdale County subsequently took possession of the land.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. and Mrs. Robinson filed an inverse condemnation suit against Trousdale County in the Circuit Court (trial court).
- The trial judge, sitting without a jury, held the husband was estopped from claiming damages and awarded the wife $530 for the value of the land taken.
- All parties appealed the trial court's judgment to the Tennessee Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but modified the disposition of the $530 award, ordering it to be invested by the court clerk pending the death of one spouse or their divorce.
- All parties petitioned the Supreme Court of Tennessee (highest court) for a writ of certiorari.
- The Supreme Court granted the wife's petition, limiting the appeal to the question of the disposition of the monetary award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Tennessee law, does the common law doctrine of coverture, which grants a husband the unilateral right to control and dispose of the use and profits of property held as tenants by the entirety, remain valid following the passage of the Married Women's Emancipation Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Henry, Justice
No. The common law disability of coverture no longer has any sanction in Tennessee jurisprudence and is hereby abolished. The Married Women's Emancipation Act of 1913 fully eradicated this disability, and the subsequent legislative amendment in 1919, while preserving the estate of tenancy by the entirety, did not restore the husband's common law primacy. The court resolves a long-standing conflict in state case law by rejecting the line of cases that upheld the husband's dominant control, finding such a rule 'archaic,' 'gross and unconscionable,' and contrary to modern standards of justice. Henceforth, each tenant by the entirety has an equal right to the use, control, and profits of the property, and any unilateral attempt by one spouse to sell or encumber the property is void at the instance of the aggrieved spouse.
Concurring - Henry, Justice
No. While fully agreeing with the majority's reasoning, the decision should also be explicitly based on constitutional grounds. The common law disability of coverture is a sex-based classification that constitutes an invidious discrimination against married women. As such, it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the 'law of the land' provision of the Tennessee Constitution by depriving married women of their property rights without due process and denying them equal protection.
Analysis:
This decision marks a pivotal moment in Tennessee property law by definitively resolving a deep-seated conflict in its jurisprudence concerning tenancy by the entirety. By explicitly abolishing the common law disability of coverture, the court modernized the state's property laws to reflect principles of gender equality, overturning a line of precedent that had preserved the husband's dominant rights. The ruling significantly strengthens the property rights of married women, ensuring that both spouses have equal control and benefit from jointly owned property. This creates a clear, protective rule for real estate transactions, preventing one spouse from unilaterally disposing of or encumbering property held in a tenancy by the entirety.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Robinson v. Trousdale County (1974)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"