Kahn v. Kahn, 43 N.Y.2d 203 (1977)
A court cannot order the sale of a marital home owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety unless the legal relationship of husband and wife has been altered by granting a divorce, an annulment, a separation, or by declaring a void marriage a nullity.
Summary
In a divorce action, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a court could order the sale of real property held by the parties as tenants by the entirety when the marital relationship had not been legally altered. The husband brought an action for divorce, which was dismissed, and the wife’s counterclaim for separation was withdrawn. The Court of Appeals held that absent a divorce, annulment, separation, or declaration of nullity, the court lacks the authority to order the sale of a marital home owned as tenants by the entirety. The Court clarified that Section 234 of the Domestic Relations Law is procedural and does not alter existing property law principles.
Facts
The wife and husband were married in 1949. The husband initiated a divorce action based on cruel and inhuman treatment. The wife counterclaimed for a separation, a share of jointly held bank accounts, and payment for necessaries, support, and counsel fees. The wife later withdrew her counterclaim for separation. The trial court dismissed the husband’s complaint but awarded the wife possession of the marital home, her interest in the joint bank accounts, and payment for support and necessaries accruing from separation until the date of trial.
Procedural History
The trial court dismissed the husband’s complaint and awarded the wife possession of the marital home, her interest in joint bank accounts, and payment for support and necessaries. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the husband’s complaint but ordered the sale of the marital premises and the division of proceeds based on the parties’ equities. The Appellate Division also reduced the wife’s share of the bank accounts and the award for necessaries and support. The wife appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether, in a matrimonial action, a court may order the sale of real property held by the parties as tenants by the entirety, even though the marital relationship has not been legally altered.
Holding
No, because unless a court alters the legal relationship of husband and wife by granting a divorce, an annulment, a separation, or by declaring a void marriage a nullity, it has no authority to order the sale of a marital home owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the common law principle that husband and wife are considered one person, owning the estate in its entirety. The court cited Stelz v. Shreck, 128 N.Y. 263 (1891), noting that termination of the legal fiction of unity should have an effect on the estate. While divorce or annulment converts a tenancy by the entirety into a tenancy in common, separation without a judicial decree does not alter the ownership. The Court addressed Section 234 of the Domestic Relations Law, clarifying that its primary purpose is procedural—to resolve disputes involving possession and title within a marital action—rather than to alter substantive property law. The court stated, “[T]he determination of title questions [is] to be controlled by principles of property law.” (1963 Report of Joint Legislative Committee on Matrimonial and Family Laws, NY Legis Doc, No. 34, 1963, pp 84-85). Since the parties had not obtained a divorce, annulment, or separation, the tenancy by the entirety remained intact. The Court distinguished cases where a separation decree had been granted, arguing that such a decree legally alters the marital relationship. The court held that absent a judicial decree altering the marital relationship, a court cannot order the sale of property held as tenants by the entirety. The Court also addressed an error by the Appellate Division related to the wife’s share of the joint bank accounts, finding that the lower court erroneously concluded that certain funds had been double-counted.