In Re the Estate of Houghton

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In Re the Estate of Houghton

383 A.2d 713, 75 N.J. 462, 1978 N.J. LEXIS 140

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 13, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 383 A.2d 713 (In Re the Estate of Houghton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Estate of Houghton, 383 A.2d 713, 75 N.J. 462, 1978 N.J. LEXIS 140 (N.J. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question in this ease is whether there has been a transfer subject to the transfer inheritance tax, N. J. S. A. 54:34-1 et seq., when a husband and wife, owners of realty as tenants by the entirety, enter into a contract to sell the land, and the husband dies before the contract is consummated. The Appellate Division held the contract did not terminate the tenancy by the entirety and the transfer was not taxable. We agree essentially for the reasons stated in its opinion. A tax is imposed when real property is “transferred by will or by the intestate laws of this State from a resident of this State dying seized or possessed thereof.” N. J. S. A. 54:34r-la. As we pointed out in Newman v. Chase, 70 N. J. 254, 259 n. 3 (1976), upon the death of a tenant by the entirety the survivor becomes sole owner either by right of survivorship or as an incident of the original grant or devise. Under either theory the transfer of the realty upon the husband’s death was not ascribable to a will or intestacy. The principle of equitable conversion was not applicable under these circumstances insofar as the State was concerned.

Affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes and Justices Sullivan, Pashman, Clifford, Schreiber and Handler and Judge Conford — 7.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The question in this ease is whether there has been a transfer subject to the transfer inheritance tax, N. J. S. A. 54:34-1 et seq., when a husband and wife, owners of realty as tenants by the entirety, enter into a contract to sell the land, and the husband dies before the contract is consummated. The Appellate Division held the contract did not terminate the tenancy by the entirety and the transfer was not taxable. We agree essentially for the reasons stated in its opinion. A tax is imposed when real property is “transferred by will or by the intestate laws of this State from a resident of this State dying seized or possessed thereof.” N. J. S. A. 54:34r-la. As we pointed out in Newman v. Chase, 70 N. J. 254, 259 n. 3 (1976), upon the death of a tenant by the entirety the survivor becomes sole owner either by right of survivorship or as an incident of the original grant or devise. Under either theory the transfer of the realty upon the husband’s death was not ascribable to a will or intestacy. The principle of equitable conversion was not applicable under these circumstances insofar as the State was concerned.

Affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes and Justices Sullivan, Pashman, Clifford, Schreiber and Handler and Judge Conford — 7.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 A.2d 713, 75 N.J. 462, 1978 N.J. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-houghton-nj-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack