November 6 Case Briefs

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

PROPERTY

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by anorajon10

1. Case Name, Court, Date of Opinion Sawada v. Endo, Supreme Court of Hawaii, 1977 2. Factual summary (a brief paragraph, 3-5 sentences) Mrs. Sawada was injured after being hit by a car driven by Mr. Endo, one of the Defendants. Mr. Endo had no liability insurance. By deed dated prior to the accident, but recorded after the accident, the Defendants conveyed real property to their sons for no consideration. The Plaintiff sued to set aside the conveyance of the Defendants’ property. The trial court refused to set aside the conveyance and the Plaintiff appealed. 3. Procedural History (what happened in the court(s) below) In trying to obtain satisfaction from the judgment, the Sawadas brought suit seeking to set aside the Endos’ transfer of land to their sons. The trial court ruled against the Sawadas, and the Sawadas appealed. 4. Issue(s) on Appeal Is the interest of one spouse in real property, held in tenancy by the entireties, subject to levy and execution by his or her individual creditors? 5. Rule of Law Neither husband nor wife has a separate divisible interest in the property held by the entirety that can be conveyed or reached by execution. A joint tenancy may be destroyed by voluntary alienation, or by levy and execution, or by compulsory partition, but a tenancy by the entirety may not. The indivisibility of the estate, except by joint action of the spouses, is an indispensable feature of the tenancy by the entirety. 5. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning The tenancy by the entirety is not subject to the claims of his or her creditors. The conveyance was not fraudulent and cannot be set aside. The interest of a husband or a wife in an estate by the entireties is not subject to the claims of his or her individual creditors during the joint lives of the spouses. Creditors are not entitled to special consideration, if the debt arose after the creation of the tenancy by the entireties, the creditor presumably had notice of the characteristics of the estate The public policy interest furthered is one of family solidarity and allowing for convenient administration of the decedent’s estate without worrying about decedent’s debts. 6. Court’s Holding Yes 9. Result (who wins, and disposition, such as “affirmed,” “reversed,” “remanded,” etc.) Affirmed

10. Dissent The dissent focused on an interpretation of the Married Women’s Act meant to equalize the positions of husband and wife and therefore, each may subject their rights to levy or creditors. 10. Why you think this case is significant Neither husband nor wife has a separate divisible interest in the property held by the entirety that can be conveyed or reached by execution. A joint tenancy may be destroyed by voluntary alienation, or by levy and execution, or by compulsory partition, but a tenancy by the entirety may not. The indivisibility of the estate, except by joint action of the spouses, is an indispensable feature of the tenancy by the entirety. 1. Case Name, Court, Date of Opinion Guy v. Guy, Supreme Court of Mississippi, 1999 2. Factual summary (a brief paragraph, 3-5 sentences) Robert Sidney Guy, Jr. (hereinafter Rob) and Audra Marian Guy (hereinafter Audra) were married May 14, 1994. However, 3 years later, the couple was awarded a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. In the final judgment of divorce, the chancellor valued plaintiff's nursing degree and credited that value to her portion of the marital assets because her husband testified that he helped support her while she obtained her degree. Audra filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, or, alternatively, for Relief from Judgment which the Chancellor denied. Audra appealed. 3. Procedural History (what happened in the court(s) below) Audra filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, or, alternatively, for Relief from Judgment which the Chancellor denied. Audra appealed. 4. Issue(s) on Appeal Can a professional degree be considered marital property? 5. Rule of Law Professional degrees are not marital property. 5. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning The court held that professional degrees are not marital property. In the present case, Audra's nursing degree is not marital property. Her nursing license is not a chattel, which can be divided or assigned. Rob may not share in it. The nursing degree and license may only be issued to a qualified holder. The court did not intend "property" in the sense of "marital property" to include intellectual or technical mental enhancement gained during the course of a marriage. However,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help