8/3/2019 Property. January 31, 2012

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/property-january-31-2012 1/2

January 31, 2012

y  Tenancy by the Entirety

o  Husband and wife were one and thus hold property as one person 

y  Sawada v. Endo 

o  P struck by Ds car while crossing a crosswalk. At the time D were tenants in entiretywith his wife. A year after the accident, the Endos conveyed the home to their sons.

Sawada sisters got tort judgment and when had trouble collecting judgment, they

brought suit claiming suit between parents and sons was a fraudulent transfer.

  Fraudulent transfer came from EnglandTwynnes case.

o  Hawaii court determined that tenancy by entirety cant be reached by the creditors of 

one of the spouses.

  Say they pick this rule because they are protecting the familythey think thats 

more important than allowing creditors to reach this kind of property.

y  Guy v. Guy 

o  Court determined that degree is not martial property but the husband is entitled to

some compensation for financially supporting his wife through nursing school.

y  In re Estate of Roccamonte 

o  Husband, during an affair, promises his mistress he will take care of her after his death.

After he dies, husbands estate gain interest in his land and mistress sues husbands 

estate because of husbands promise to take care of her.

  The court determined that husbands oral promisegiven context that he did

take care of her, also because of testimoniesis enforceable.

  D argues that the payment was promised in return for sexual favors, which is 

not enforceable.

y  Courts determine that consideration for a promise can differ depending

on the different relationship; it just matters how two people forgo other

opportunities to f ulfill each others needs as best as they are able.

o  The court will determine awards based on her life expectancy from the date of his death.

So in essence, P will get what husband promised her (or what juries decided it to be)for

the rest of her life (which the jury will determine her l ife expectancy)

y  In re Marriage Cases 

o  The California Supreme Court ruled that the distinction between domestic partnership

and marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

  The court stated that in order for a category to survive strict scrunity, it might

serve a compelling state interest or necessary to serve such interests.

  In this case, the court determined that the distinction served the opposite

purpose. First, it did not afford equal rights currently enjoyed by married

opposite sex couple. Maintaining a separation will deny some couples access to

familiar and favored designation of marriage that gives hetero-couples a sense

of dignity. Moreover with the distinction, there might be a promulgated view

that same sex couples are of lesser stature than comparable relationship of 

8/3/2019 Property. January 31, 2012

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/property-january-31-2012 2/2

opposite-sex couples. Put together, the restriction of marriage to only man and

woman would perpetrate a view that gay individuals are second class citizens.

This, therefore, violates the equal protection clause.

o  Having determined that the CA marriage statute treats persons different on basis of 

sexual orientation, the court looks to whether the classification is a suspect

classification that calls for scrutiny.

  Historically, for a statutory classification to be considered suspect, the

defining characteristic must be (1) based on immutable trait, (2) bear no

relation to persons ability to perform or contribute to society, (3) be associated

with second class citizenship.

y  The statute, according to the court, satisfies last two but there is 

debate whether it can satisfy the first. However, just because gayness 

might/might not be an immutable trait does not mean it cant satisfy

the first condition. The courts have said before that religion and

alienage could be immutable traitseven though in theory, one can

pick their religion and citizen status.

o