Logo
Call Now(480)305-8300

Joint Tenancy Property in an Arizona Probate

Posted on : August 4, 2016, By:  Christopher Hildebrand
Gift of Separate Property Through Joint Tenancy Deed

Joint Tenancy Property in an Arizona Probate

In Arizona, spouses have the right to hold property in joint tenancy with right of survivorship. The regular rules of joint tenancy still apply to joint tenancies with rights of survivorship. If one of the spouses transfers their interest to a third party though, it voids the joint tenancy altogether.

What happens when spouses sign a contract to sell a joint tenancy property, but one spouse dies before the interest transfers? In Smith v. Tang, 464 P.2d 982 (1966) the Arizona Supreme Court addressed this question.

Facts of the Case

Mrs. Smith and Mr. Smith married in 1949. They signed an antenuptial agreement before the marriage. During the marriage, they bought a house, taking the title in joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. In 1959, they entered into a contract to sell the property, but before the actual sale, Mr. Smith died. He left his property to his children from a prior marriage.

Mrs. Smith sued the executor (Tang) of her husband’s estate on several counts. These included money she paid for his funeral. She also sued to recover the amount of the house sales price and for a homestead allowance.

The jury found in Mrs. Smith’s favor and awarded an amount greater than the amount she had asked for.

The trial court granted a new trial. The court also denied her other requests. From these rulings, she appeals.

Consequences of Jury Award that Exceeds the Demand

Wife sought a total of about $16,000 from the estate. The jury was confused, reversed the counts and awarded about $1,900 more than that. The estate asked for a new trial and the court agreed. Its order did not specify the grounds.

Wife claims that the court should not have granted a new trial. The estate argues on appeal that it is appropriate for the trial court to order a new trial when the jury awards excess demanded damages.

The rule in Arizona is that when a jury awards more damages than requested, a court can modify the award. As long as the intent of the jury is clear, the trial court reforms the damage award to match the jury’s intent.

It is erroneous to order a new trial in this case, however. Here, the Supreme Court found that the clear intention of the jury was to award Mrs. Smith everything she asked for.

The trial court should have modified the verdict by reducing it by $1,900 instead of granting a new trial.

Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
A Google User
A Google User
20:31 20 Sep 17
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
A Google User
A Google User
21:41 07 Nov 17
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Google User
Google User
14:58 04 Oct 17
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
A Google User
A Google User
16:03 22 Nov 17
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
A Google User
A Google User
22:14 28 Jun 17
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
A Google User
A Google User
18:16 18 Sep 17
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
A Google User
A Google User
19:22 23 Aug 17
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
A Google User
A Google User
17:44 23 Jun 16
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
Bassam Ziadeh
Bassam Ziadeh
21:20 02 Apr 18
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Larry Flint
Larry Flint
21:53 27 Feb 18
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
Sam Franchimone
Sam Franchimone
22:09 12 Sep 13

The Joint Tenancy Property

Before Mr. Smith died, he and his wife sold the property that they held as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. However, when Mr. Smith died, the sale was still pending.

Selling Jointly Owned Property With Rights of Survivorship.

Selling Jointly Owned Property With Rights of Survivorship.

Mrs. Smith, as one of the joint tenancy owners, had an absolute right to one-half of the proceeds. She claimed that she also had the right to the rest given the way the couple held a title.

In a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, when one spouse dies, their share goes to the surviving spouse. The estate claimed that the contract of sale voided the joint tenancy.

The Supreme Court considered the four unities necessary for a joint tenancy. These are (1) time (2) title (3) interest and (4) possession.

Although a contract of sale does not change the unities of time, title or possession, it does change interest. The interest held by the owners is merely title held as security for payment of the purchase price. The buyer holds beneficial title by equitable conversion.

Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith did not show an intent to take the proceeds in joint tenancy. Mr. Smith put the down payment amount in his separate account. Therefore, the proceeds were not taken in joint tenancy and she has no rights in her husband’s share.

Validity of Antenuptial Agreement

Mrs. Smith argued that a portion of the antenuptial agreement waiving her rights to a probate homestead was void.

She claimed that only clearly stated language in an antenuptial agreement can waive a probate estate. The Court agreed with that proposition. It found, however, that the agreement clearly and explicitly described the rights. Therefore, wife waived the rights by signing the agreement.

Disposition

The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the new trial order. It remanded to the trial court with orders to issue a decision consistent with this opinion.


What’s Hot – Blog