ILNews

Court reverses joint tenancy interest ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a finding that a mother and her daughter and son-in-law each held a one-half joint tenancy in a property, finding the parties actually held one-third undivided interest as joint tenants.

In Janice and Burdette Ramer v. Betty Smith, No. 57A04-0804-CV-202, Betty and Richard Smith executed a warranty deed conveying a tract of land to Betty's daughter, Janice, and her husband, Burdette Ramer, who had begun constructing a home on the land with the help of Richard. After some problems with the conveyance, the parties executed a second warranty deed, with the Smiths conveying a 16.99 acre tract of the property and the Ramers conveying the original 6.60 tract of land conveyed in the first deed to all four individuals, creating a 23.59 acre tract. The granting clause of the second deed read: "RICHARD W. SMITH and BETTY J. SMITH, husband and wife, and BURDETTE RAMER and JANICE RAMER, husband and wife ... Conveys and warrants to: RICHARD W. SMITH, BETTY J. SMITH, BURDETTE RAMER, and JANICE RAMER, as Joint Tenants With right [sic] of Survivorship ...."

Richard died four years later, and Betty filed a petition for partition of the 23 acre tract. The trial court concluded the second deed conveyed a one-half joint tenancy interest to the Ramers, which they held as tenants by the entireties, and Betty was entitled to one-half. The trial court valued the land at nearly $310,000, with the Ramers' house valued at $185,400. The trial court appointed a commissioner to sell the property at public sale because the property can't be divided into equal shares of value without physically dividing the residence.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding instead the parties had one-third undivided interest as joint tenants.

"In addition, the phrase 'with right of survivorship,' the placement of the names in a list implying equal treatment, and the omission of the phrase 'husband and wife' from the grantee clause after having been used in the grantor clause all indicate intent to create a joint tenancy," wrote Judge Margret Robb.

The appellate court also affirmed the Ramers weren't entitled to contribution for value added to the property. The Smiths had contributed to the value of the property by giving the Ramers a 6-acre tract of land, and Richard had helped excavate the land for construction of their home, wrote the judge. In addition, when joint tenancy is created, each tenant acquires an equal right to share in the use and enjoyment of the land during their lives and are entitled to an equal share upon partition, wrote Judge Robb.

Finally, the appellate court remanded to the trial court to determine the proper method of partitioning the property because now it is at least mathematically possible to divide the property while leaving the residence intact, she wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT