Maddams v. Maddams
| Decision Date | 08 February 1967 |
| Citation | 352 Mass. 32,223 N.E.2d 519 |
| Parties | Robert N. MADDAMS v. Marybel C. MADDAMS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John P. Curley, Hyannis, for respondent.
Robert F. Mooney, Nantucket, for petitioner.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, KIRK and SPIEGEL, JJ.
In this petition for partition the judge made a report of material facts of which the following is a summary. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Since August, 1964, they have been separated and separation proceedings are now pending in a New York court. The respondent has been living in Nantucket since May of 1965. The property which is the subject of this petition is a parcel of land in the town of Nantucket on which there is a two story frame dwelling house containing three apartments.
The petitioner purchased the property on June 8, 1956, and took title, as shown on a Land Court certificate of title, in the names of himself and the respondent 'as joint tenants with the right of survivorship and not as tenants in common.' The purchase price was $10,000, and was paid by $3,000 in cash advanced by the petitioner, and by two mortgages in the amounts of $6,000 and $1,000. Both mortgages have been satisfied by the petitioner from his own funds. Since the property was acquired, the real estate taxes, insurance, and repairs have been paid for by the petitioner; he has also made substantial improvements to the property. Until their separation the petitioner and the respondent resided in one of the apartments during the summer season; the other two apartments were rented. The petitioner has not lived on the property since August, 1964; the respondent has lived there since May, 1965. The property is now 'subject to various claims' (including an attachment for $2,400 by a plumber) for work and materials furnished during 1964 and 1965. During her occupancy the respondent has paid no rent; nor has she paid anything with respect to the 'claims against the property.'
After finding the foregoing facts the judge concluded that 'the petitioner and respondent hold title to the property as simple joint tenants, that there was no intention to create a tenancy by the entirety at the time of purchase or thereafter, and that the parties each have a one-half undivided interest in the property.' From a decree in accordance with this conclusion, the respondent appealed. The evidence is not reported.
If the parties took title as tenants by the entirety there could be no partition. Bernatavicius v. Bernatavicius, 259 Mass. 486, 487, 156 N.E. 685, 52 A.L.R. 886. G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flynn v. Brassard
...the final decree must fall (Barnhart v. Board of Appeals of Scituate, 343 Mass. 455, 457, 179 N.E.2d 251 (1962); Maddams v. Maddams, 352 Mass. 32, 34, 223 N.E.2d 519 (1967); Shapiro v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 355 Mass. 54, 55--56, 242 N.E.2d 753 (1968)) unless, as matter of law, the ear......
-
In re Coombs
...by the entirety is still not subject to partition in kind or by sale in Massachusetts. Mass.Gen.L. ch. 241, § 1; see Maddams v. Maddams, 352 Mass. 32, 223 N.E.2d 519 (1967). The parties also agree that the fair market value of the property is $75,000. The Debtor has offered to purchase his ......
-
D'Ercole v. D'Ercole, Civ. A. No. 73-3070-T.
...521 (1912); Childs v. Childs, 293 Mass. 67, 199 N.E. 383 (1935); Finn v. Finn, 348 Mass. 443, 204 N.E.2d 293 (1965); Maddams v. Maddams, 352 Mass. 32, 223 N.E.2d 519 (1967). See also, Gould v. Gould, 359 Mass. 29, 267 N.E.2d 652 (1971). The presumption in favor of tenancies by the entirety ......
-
In re Conroy
...appears on the face of the instrument." Fekkes v. Hughes, 354 Mass. 303, 304, 237 N.E.2d 19, 20 (1968); see also Maddams v. Maddams, 352 Mass. 32, 33, 223 N.E.2d 519, 521 (1967). As no such intent appeared on the deed, the Debtor and his spouse acquired the Residence as tenants by the entir......