Third Nat. Bank in Nashville v. Knobler, 89-37-I
| Decision Date | 23 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-37-I,89-37-I |
| Citation | 789 S.W.2d 254 |
| Parties | THIRD NATIONAL BANK IN NASHVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald Gay KNOBLER, Linda R. Knobler, Jonnie T. Winnard, Tim M. Taylor, and Capitol Mortgage Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. 789 S.W.2d 254 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Robert C. Goodrich, Jr., Joseph R. Prochaska, Nashville, for plaintiff-appellant.
John P. Long, Nashville, for defendants-appellees.
This Court granted Third National Bank's application to review the Court of Appeals' holding that a previously attached survivorship interest in property owned as tenants by the entireties was destroyed by a subsequent conveyance of the property by the owners.
Although this case has had a lengthy history, the only facts pertinent to the present appeal may be briefly stated.
Mr. and Mrs. Knobler owned some real property as tenants by the entireties. Prior to the dissolution of that tenancy, but during the pendency of an action for divorce, Third National Bank levied on Mr. Knobler's right of survivorship in one of the properties. Since that time, through three appeals and sundry other proceedings in the courts of Williamson and Davidson Counties, the bank has been tenaciously clinging to its interest.
In the divorce proceeding the court ordered the property sold. Jonnie T. Winnard, one of the appellees here, bought the property at the sale. In March of 1987 the Davidson County Chancery Court held that the bank's lien on the survivorship interest of Mr. Knobler survived the subsequent divorce and sale of the property. That decision was not appealed. The bank then moved to have the survivorship interest sold in a judicial sale pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. Sec. 35-5-101 et seq. In an order entered on August 21, 1987, the chancellor denied the requested sale on the ground that the cited code sections applied to judicial sales of land and not to the survivorship interest.
The bank appealed the August 21 order of the chancery court, and the Court of Appeals reversed the chancellor on the question presented, i.e. the applicability of Tenn.Code Ann. Sec. 35-5-101 et seq., to a sale of the survivorship interest. Then, although neither party raised the issue, the Court of Appeals went on to hold that the sale of the property destroyed the survivorship interest of Mr. Knobler. Therefore, the Court reasoned, the bank's lien on that interest also vanished with the sale. The Court said, "when the tenancy ends all rights of survivorship are extinguished."
We are of the opinion that the holding of the Court of Appeals on the survivorship issue must be reversed for two reasons. First, because the judgment holding that the interest survived the sale was not appealed and became final. The chancery court rendered its judgment on March 3, 1987. The next entry in the records of that court is a motion filed on June 4, 1987 for a judicial sale of the survivorship interest.
It is our conclusion that the judgment entered on March 3, 1987 was a final, appealable judgment under Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Since a notice of appeal under Rule 3(e), Tenn.R.App.P., or other motion specified in Rule 4(b), Tenn.R.App.P., was not filed within thirty days of the entry of the judgment, review of the question decided is now foreclosed in the appellate courts. See Jefferson v. Pneumo Services Corp., 699 S.W.2d 181 (Tenn.App.1985).
In addition, we are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals erred on the merits of the survivorship issue. There are numerous cases in Tennessee holding that the right of survivorship, previously conveyed or attached by a judgment creditor, is not destroyed by the dissolution of the tenancy by the entireties. In Weaks v. Gress, 225 Tenn. 593, 474 S.W.2d 424 (1971), this Court held that a conveyance by the husband and wife, after a judgment lien had attached to the husband's interest in property held by the entireties breached the warranty against encumbrances in the deed to the purchaser. We think that decision is squarely on point. To the same effect is Ames v. Norman, 36 Tenn. 683 (1857), where the Court held that a subsequent divorce which destroyed the tenancy by the entireties, had no effect whatever on the rights of one who had purchased the survivorship interest at an execution sale. See also Aiken v. Suttle, 72 Tenn. 103 (1879) and Whitley v. Meador, 137 Tenn. 163, 192 S.W. 718 (1917).
The Court of Appeals was of the opinion, however, that the result in these cases would be different since the decision of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Maryland (In re Ross), Bankruptcy No. 11–00757.
...the contrary rule applying in the District of Columbia under Amer. Wholesale Corp. v. Aronstein). 7.Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville v. Knobler, 789 S.W.2d 254 (Tenn.1990). 8. Here, the Rosses have every incentive not to agree to treat the entireties estate at an end upon a sale as they desire......
-
In Re: Barbara Allen Chadwick
...that spouse's right of survivorship but not against the spouse's present possessory interest. Id. (citing Third National Bank v. Knobler, 789 S.W.2d 254, 255 (Tenn. Sup. Ct.1990) and Robinson, 516 S.W.2d at 632). Both parts of the entirety interest are included in the bankruptcy estate of a......
-
Smartbank v. Stephens, E2018-01900-COA-R3-CV
...that destroyed a tenancy by the entirety had no effect on the rights of a purchaser of a survivorship interest. Third Nat'l Bank v. Knobler, 789 S.W.2d 254, 255 (Tenn.1990) (citing Ames [v. Norman,] 36 Tenn. [(4 Sneed) 683,] at 696-97[, 1857 WL 2544, at *5 (Tenn.1857))].Id. at 19. As such, ......
- Pierce v. State, M2020-00533-COA-R3-CV