Young v. McIntyre

• Decision Date: 10 December 2008
• Docket Number: No. 33872.,33872.
• Parties: Andrew YOUNG, Administrator of the Estate of David G. Young, and Andrew Young, individually, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. Pamela Sue MCINTYRE, formerly known as Pamela Sue Young and the Huntington National Bank, Defendants Below, Appellees.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

672 S.E.2d 196

Andrew YOUNG, Administrator of the Estate of David G. Young, and Andrew Young, individually, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. Pamela Sue MCINTYRE, formerly known as Pamela Sue Young and the Huntington National Bank, Defendants Below, Appellees.

No. 33872.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: September 24, 2008.

Decided: December 10, 2008.

Syllabus by the Court

1. "A circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo." Syllabus Point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).

2. "Questions of law and statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review." Syllabus Point 1, Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263, 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995).

3. "In construing a deed, will, or other written instrument, it is the duty of the court to construe it as a whole, taking and considering all the parts together, and giving effect to the intention of the parties wherever that is reasonably clear and free from doubt, unless to do so will violate some principle of law inconsistent therewith." Syllabus Point 3, Farley v. Farley, 215 W.Va. 465, 600 S.E.2d 177 (2004).

4. "In order to create a common law joint tenancy in real property the parties must receive an undivided interest under four conditions: 1) each party's undivided interest must vest at the same time; 2) each party must receive an undivided interest in the whole estate; 3) each party's possession must be coequal so that his property interest is the same as to the legal estate and duration; and 4) each party must receive his interest in the same title document. These four conditions for the creation of a common law joint tenancy are commonly abbreviated as the four unities of time, interest, possession and title. The main attribute of a common law joint tenancy was the right to survivorship." Syllabus Point 1, Herring v. Carroll, 171 W.Va. 516, 300 S.E.2d 629 (1983).

5. "The common law incident of survivorship in a joint tenancy has been altered by W. Va.Code, 36-1-19. We have rather uniformly held that this statute abrogates the right of survivorship in a common law joint tenancy unless under W. Va.Code, 36-1-20, `it manifestly appears from the tenor of the instrument that it was intended that the part of the one dying should then belong to the others.'" Syllabus Point 3, Herring v. Carroll, 171 W.Va. 516, 300 S.E.2d 629 (1983).

6. "W. Va.Code, 36-1-19 and 20, do not abolish the common law requirement of the four unities in a joint tenancy." Syllabus Point 5, Herring v. Carroll, 171 W.Va. 516, 300 S.E.2d 629.

7. A divorce decree, alone, does not cause a severance of a joint tenancy. The right of survivorship of a joint tenant does not arise out of the marriage relationship. Absent either an express intent to sever or conduct inconsistent with the continuation of the joint tenancy, the right of survivorship will continue after a dissolution of the marriage of joint tenants.

8. In circumstances of divorce, joint tenants can agree to hold as tenants in common and thus sever the joint tenancy. Such an agreement can be express or implied from conduct of the parties inconsistent with holding in joint tenancy.

Floyd M. Sayre, III, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP, Martinsburg, for Appellants.

Pamela Sue McIntyre, Pro Se, Appellee.

BENJAMIN, Justice.¹

This appeal is brought by Appellants Andrew Young, Administrator of the Estate of David G. Young, and Andrew Young, individually from an order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County entered on April 16, 2007, granting Appellee Pamela Sue McIntyre's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment. Appellants filed the instant civil action on December 12, 2006, requesting a judgment quieting title to a one-half undivided interest in the subject property. On appeal, Appellants allege that the circuit court erred in holding that the plain language of the final order in the divorce of David Young, Appellants' father, from Pamela Sue Young did not constitute an agreement involving an exchange of each party's rights and obligations with respect to their former marital domicile. Appellants also allege that the circuit court erred in holding that the property settlement agreement adopted by the final order in the divorce did not sever the joint tenancy clause of their deed of conveyance. This Court has before it the petition for appeal, all matters of record and briefs and arguments of counsel. For the reasons expressed below, the April 16, 2007, order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County is reversed and remanded for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant Andrew Young is the Administrator of the Estate of David Young, [hereinafter referred to as "decedent"] who died intestate in Berkeley County, West Virginia on or about July 31, 2006.² Pamela McIntyre and the decedent were married in Washington County, Maryland, on June 30, 1982. By deed dated June 13, 1983, David Young was conveyed the property which is the subject of this dispute, located in the Arden District of Berkeley County, West Virginia.³ By deed dated October 2, 1987, the couple, as husband and wife, was conveyed the subject property as joint tenant with rights of survivorship by deed of record in the Berkeley County clerk's office in Deed Book 423, at page 625.

On or about January 27, 2005, decedent filed a Verified Complaint in the Family Court of Berkeley County, West Virginia, for divorce, Case No. 05-D-86. The parties executed a property settlement agreement dated October 24, 2005, wherein the parties agreed, in pertinent part that:

"The parties will continue to own the former marital domicile and shall list the property for sale in the spring of 2006. That Husband will continue to exclusively live in the house and pay the mortgage debts on the same. The parties agree to split the cost of repairs to sell the house up to $5,000 each. When the house sells, the parties will split the net proceeds equally."

The Final Divorce Order was entered on November 8, 2005, and the Property Settlement Agreement was incorporated therein and was enforceable by either party against the other through contempt powers. Decedent had exclusive possession of the subject property subsequent to the entry of the Final Divorce Order. Although the parties agreed to sell the property, it was not sold prior to the decedent's death.

Appellants filed the instant civil action on December 12, 2006, requesting a judgment quieting title to a one-half undivided interest in the subject property. Ms. McIntyre filed a motion for summary judgment on March 6, 2007. On March 23, 2007, the Appellants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. The circuit court entered an order on April 16, 2007, granting Ms. McIntyre's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.⁴

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law." Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. 52, 59, 459 S.E.2d 329, 336 (1995). "A circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo." Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). Furthermore, "questions of law and statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review." Syl. Pt. 1, Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263, 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995). Mindful of these standards, we proceed to consider the arguments of the parties.

III. DISCUSSION

Appellants ask us to consider two issues in this matter. The first being whether the circuit court erred in holding that the plain language of the final order in the divorce did not constitute an agreement involving an exchange of each parties' rights and obligations with respect to the property or equitable conversion. The second being whether the circuit court erred in holding that the property settlement agreement did not sever the joint tenancy clause of the deed of conveyance. We address each of these issues in turn.

A. Equitable Conversion

The parties entered into a property settlement agreement dated October 24, 2005, wherein they agreed to repair the real estate, list it, sell it, and split the proceeds when sold. The property settlement agreement was adopted by the lower court in the final Divorce Order dated November 8, 2005. Under the express terms of the final order, the decedent was given exclusive possession of the property.

Appellants allege that by entering into the property settlement agreement, the parties made an equitable conversion of the real estate, entitling each to a one-half interest in the economic value of the property. Appellants rely upon our prior decision in Timberlake v. Heflin, 180 W.Va. 644, 379 S.E.2d 149 (1989), wherein we held that when a contract to sell is made, the document of equitable conversion comes into play. Id. at 650, 379 S.E.2d at 155.

In Timberlake, a former husband sued his former wife seeking specific performance of a parol contract for transfer of her interest in their home owned as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. The former husband died after the petition for appeal was accepted. Therein, we evaluated whether a valid contract for a sale of the property existed, and whether the statute of frauds was satisfied. We found that because the divorce complaint stated that the former wife agreed to convey her interest to her husband, and the husband had contracted, as a joint tenant with a right of survivorship, to buy his fellow joint tenant's interest, the death of the purchaser did not operate to permit the survivorship incident in the deed to transfer his interest, if the purchaser's heirs or administrator were willing to complete the purchase contract. In arriving at this decision, this Court looked to the doctrine of equitable conversion enunciated in Maudru v. Humphreys, 83...