Debnam v. Debnam

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Debnam v. Debnam

63 Pa. D. & C. 700, 1948 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 420

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedJuly 28, 1948

Docketno. 4187

StatusPublished

This text of 63 Pa. D. & C. 700 (Debnam v. Debnam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Debnam v. Debnam, 63 Pa. D. & C. 700, 1948 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 420 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Crumlish, J.,

The parties to this action were married on December 7, 1935. By deed dated June 6, 1945, they, as tenants by the entireties, acquired title to a property in Philadelphia. On September 11, 1947, the Court of Common Pleas No. 3, as of December term, 1946, no. 543, entered a decree of annulment sur plaintiff’s application for annulment of the marriage between the parties on the ground that a marriage between plaintiff and her first husband still existed and had never been dissolved. On April 21, 1948, plaintiff filed a bill in equity for partition under the Act of May 10, 1927, P. L. 884, 68 PS §501 et seq., which provides for the partition of property after a divorce a vinculo matrimonii as to property acquired as tenants by the entireties. Judgment having been entered pro confesso and a trustee in partition having been appointed, a question of jurisdiction arose. In consequence thereof, plaintiff has filed her petition for a rule on defendant “to show cause why your petitioner should not be granted leave to file an amended bill under the Act of July 7, 1885, P. L. 257, as amended, . . .”

When property is held in the names of husband and wife, the presumption is that they hold it by the entireties and not as joint tenants or tenants in common. However, an estate by the entireties is a form of coownership peculiar to the unity of a husband and wife as one person and possesses the four unities of joint tenancies, interest, title, timé, and possession. Such title retains the incidents which pertain to it [702]*702at its inception, and a divorce, of itself, does not destroy them. In the instant case, the parties were not lawfully husband and wife at the time of taking title. Consequently, that marital status which is peculiar to a tenancy by the entireties was not present. Under the circumstances, the parties took title either as joint tenants or tenants in common, as is appropriate under the circumstances: Thornton et al. v. Pierce, 328 Pa. 11, 16 (1937); Maxwell et al. v. Saylor, 359 Pa. 94, 96 (1948).

It, therefore, being clear that plaintiff is not entitled to relief under the Act of 1927, supra, the rule prayed for is granted, returnable 10 days from the date hereof. All proceedings to stay meanwhile.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Crumlish, J.,

The parties to this action were married on December 7, 1935. By deed dated June 6, 1945, they, as tenants by the entireties, acquired title to a property in Philadelphia. On September 11, 1947, the Court of Common Pleas No. 3, as of December term, 1946, no. 543, entered a decree of annulment sur plaintiff’s application for annulment of the marriage between the parties on the ground that a marriage between plaintiff and her first husband still existed and had never been dissolved. On April 21, 1948, plaintiff filed a bill in equity for partition under the Act of May 10, 1927, P. L. 884, 68 PS §501 et seq., which provides for the partition of property after a divorce a vinculo matrimonii as to property acquired as tenants by the entireties. Judgment having been entered pro confesso and a trustee in partition having been appointed, a question of jurisdiction arose. In consequence thereof, plaintiff has filed her petition for a rule on defendant “to show cause why your petitioner should not be granted leave to file an amended bill under the Act of July 7, 1885, P. L. 257, as amended, . . .”

When property is held in the names of husband and wife, the presumption is that they hold it by the entireties and not as joint tenants or tenants in common. However, an estate by the entireties is a form of coownership peculiar to the unity of a husband and wife as one person and possesses the four unities of joint tenancies, interest, title, timé, and possession. Such title retains the incidents which pertain to it [702]*702at its inception, and a divorce, of itself, does not destroy them. In the instant case, the parties were not lawfully husband and wife at the time of taking title. Consequently, that marital status which is peculiar to a tenancy by the entireties was not present. Under the circumstances, the parties took title either as joint tenants or tenants in common, as is appropriate under the circumstances: Thornton et al. v. Pierce, 328 Pa. 11, 16 (1937); Maxwell et al. v. Saylor, 359 Pa. 94, 96 (1948).

It, therefore, being clear that plaintiff is not entitled to relief under the Act of 1927, supra, the rule prayed for is granted, returnable 10 days from the date hereof. All proceedings to stay meanwhile.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Pa. D. & C. 700, 1948 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/debnam-v-debnam-pactcomplphilad-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack