Marital Property

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules engagement rings to be conditional gifts

/ Gifts, Marital Property

Overruling its precedent from 1959, the high court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts joins the modern approach by holding that engagement rings should be returned to the giver if the engagement falls through without regard to whose fault it is that the engagement was called off. Johnson v. Settino, 2024 WL 4714383 (Mass. 2024) (overruling DeCicco v. Barker, 159 N.E.2d 534 (Mass. 1959)). The ruling makes the issue consistent with the no fault divorce regime that eschews consideration of fault in dissolving marriages. The ring is considered a conditional gift that only becomes permanent when the engagement results in a marriage.

Promise to make a gift at death enforceable if relied on by continued cohabitation

/ Estates and Future Interests, Marital Property, Trusts, Wills and Inheritance

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that a promise to give a gift at death if she continued to live with him until his death is enforceable even though it does not satisfy the state statute of wills if the promisor receives consideration for the promise, and continued cohabitation after the promise suffices. Tremblay v. Bald, 2024 WL 332101 (N.H. 2024). The contract was enforceable even though the decedent died intestate and could have, but did not, convert the written promise into a formal will.

Statutory share statute gives surviving spouse a portion of the estate of the decedent

/ Marital Property, Wills and Inheritance

Applying the terms of a long-existing state statute, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts affirmed that a second spouse could take 1/3 of her deceased husband’s estate when he failed to rewrite his will after his second marriage and his will had left his entire estate to his first wife. Ciani v. MacGrath, 114 N.E.3d 52 (Mass. 2019); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 191, §15. The court also read the state statute to give the surviving spouse a life estate in the family house rather than just a right to a share of its income.

Tenancy by the entirety interests can be sold to satisfy debts of one spouse

/ Concurrent or Common Ownership, Marital Property

A bankruptcy court in Massachusetts has ruled that state tenancy by the entirety law is preempted by  the Bankruptcy Code, §363(h)–(j), interpreting federal law to authorize the forced sale of tenancy by the entirety property over the objections of the non-debtor spouse to satisfy the debts of the debtor spouse. Desmond v. Green, 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 3136 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2018).

Can an owner or inhabitant of real property give police the right to search property when a co-owner or coinhabitant objects?

/ Concurrent or Common Ownership, Estates and Future Interests, Fourth Amendment, Leaseholds, Marital Property, Trespass

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that the police could search a closed suitcase in a common closet of a bedroom when given permission to do so by the defendant’s coinhabitant. Commonwealth v. Hernandez,93 Mass. App. Ct. 172, 2018 Mass. App. LEXIS 48 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). This ruling was based on traditional rules of property law that give tenants in common rights of access to the property they both own. The court noted that any coinhabitant had the right to consent to a search of her home, her bedroom, and her closet because these were areas where both inhabitants shared joint access or control. The Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion in the case of Georgia v. Randolph,547 U.S. 103 (2006) when it held that the police could not enter property owned by a married couple when one (but not the other) objected to entry. The Massachusetts case is consistent with …

Can an owner or inhabitant of real property give police the right to search property when a co-owner or coinhabitant objects? Read More »

While real property held as tenancy by the entirety cannot be conveyed absent consent of both spouses, funds held in a bank account can be withdrawn by either spouse and, upon withdrawal, cease to be entireties property

/ Concurrent or Common Ownership, Estates and Future Interests, Marital Property, Personal Property

The Supreme Court of Tennessee overruled prior cases and adopted the Arkansas approach that allows spouses that own bank account as tenants by the entirety are free to withdraw funds unilaterally (without consent of their co-owner) and that moneys so withdraw become the individual property of the spouse that withdrew the funds. This contrasts with real property which neither spouse may convey without the consent of the other. In re Estate of Fletcher, 538 S.W.3d 444 (Tenn. 2017). It should be noted as well that Tennessee presumes that a conveyance to a married couple is held as a tenancy by the entirety unless the language provides otherwise.

Heirs under intestacy statute include adopted children

/ Marital Property, Wills and Inheritance

In a decision one might think was unnecessary today, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the “children” who inherit under state intestacy statutes include adopted children. Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Wheeler, 132 A.3d 1178, 2016 ME 26 (Me. 2016). The issue was raised because an earlier court decision interpreting the decedent’s will had held that a separate clause leaving property to the decedent’s “issue” went to biological children (in this case grandchildren) only. This clause did not affect another clause, at issue here, that referred to the state’s intestacy statute to govern distribution of property upon termination of the trust.

Supreme Court finds fundamental liberty and equality interests in extending right to marry to same-sex couples

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Due Process, Marital Property, Religious Freedom, Sexual Orientation

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges, — U.S. — (2015), that the Constitution’s due process clause protects liberty interests that include personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy and that those include the right to marry, including someone of the same sex. The Court also held that it violates equal protection of the laws to allow male-female couples to marry but to deny that right to same-sex couples. For the same reasons, states must recognize same-sex marriages validly celebrated in other states.

Scroll to Top