Platt v. Platt

• Decision Date: 24 January 1922
• Docket Number: No. 50/377.,50/377.
• Citation: 116 A. 326
• Parties: PLATT v. PLATT et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

116 A. 326

PLATT

v. PLATT et al.

No. 50/377.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Jan. 24, 1922.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Where real property is conveyed to J. W. P. and E. P., his wife, and B. W. P. and A. P., his wife, without words defining or limiting the estate of the grantees, J. W. P. and his wife are seized as tenants by the entirety of an undivided one-half thereof which they hold as tenants in common with B. W. P. and his wife, who are seized as tenants by the entirety of the other undivided one-half.

When title to real property is held as above stated, either wife may maintain a suit against her husband and the other husband and wife, for partition of the shares held in common, and in case the property is incapable of actual partition, a sale will be decreed and the proceeds paid into court and divided into two shares. Each share will be invested for the benefit of the husband and wife entitled thereto, during their joint lives, and upon the death of one of them, the principal of such share will be paid to the survivor.

As between husband and wife who are seized of real property as tenants by the entirety, there can be no partition.

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Bill by Annie Platt against John William Platt and others. Decree for complainant.

Pearce R. Franklin, of Newark, for complainant.

Payne & McCall, of Newark, for defendants.

FIELDER, V. C. The land and premises sought to be partitioned consist of a two-family house erected on a lot 25 feet wide in front and rear by 100 feet deep. The deed under which the parties have title is dated June 13, 1919, and conveys in fee to John W. Platt and Ellen Platt, his wife, and Bertram W. Platt and Annie Platt, his wife. John W. Platt and his wife are therefore tenants by the entirety of an undivided one-half of the land and premises which they hold as tenants in common with Bertram W. Piatt and his wife, who are also tenants by the entirety of their undivided half.

John W. and Ellen Platt are the parents of Bertram W. Platt, and in purchasing the property it was the intention of all parties to acquire a home in which all should reside, and after taking title the senior Platts occupied the upper floor of the house and the junior Platts the lower floor. Of the purchase price of $4,500, the parties had $1,000 in hand and they raised the balance by borrowing $3,500 from a building and loan association, and to secure the repayment of that sum all joined in a bond and executed a mortgage covering the premises. John W. Platt and his wife claim that Bertram W. Platt and his wife agreed to contribute one-half of the $1,000 paid toward the purchase price and that in fact they paid nothing and therefore have no interest in the premises as owners. I cannot allow this claim: First, because the evidence does not satify me that the sum of $1,000 was not paid equally by the parties; and, second, because at the time of the purchase, the relations between the parties were harmonious, and the evidence, including the deed, indicates that it was the intention of John W. Platt and his wife that the title should vest in Bertram W. Platt and his wife equally with them, even if the purchasers did not contribute equally to the purchase price. It was also agreed between the parties that each Platt family should contribute, in equal parts, all money required to pay the monthly installments of principal and interest on the mortgage and for taxes, insurance, repairs, and like charges against the property, and for a time this agreement was kept; but marital difficulties arose between Bertram W. Platt and his wife, and in January, 1921, she separated from him, and shortly afterward he moved from the lower floor of the house. John W. Platt and his wife still occupy the upper floor, and they have leased the lower floor and are receiving the rent therefrom. They claim to have kept up all the payments on the building and loan mortgage and to have paid the whole of certain taxes and other charges against the property.

Annie Piatt, the wife of Bertram W. Platt, filed her bill August 15, 1921, against John W. Platt and his wife and Bertram W. Piatt, praying for a partition of the premises and that an account be taken of the payments made by all parties for charges against the property since the date of the deed and for rent received by John W. Platt and his wife, and also praying that they be charged with the rental value of the floor occupied by them and that the balance found due upon the accounting be charged against the share held in common liable therefor. The defendants contend that because they do not consent to a partition or sale, and because the complainant is not entitled to immediate possession in severalty of her interest, she is not entitled to have a partition, and they deny her right to have an accounting.

Referring to our act concerning partition (Comp. Stat. p. 3897), I find that under sections 1, 26, and 44, partition may be had in this court of land held by coparceners, joint tenants, or tenants in common, notwithstanding that the...