Reilly v. Sageser

4 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Phillips v. Nyhus

    124 Wn. 2d 80 (Wash. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    However, the law in Washington is unsettled on the question whether an earnest money agreement for sale of real property by both or all joint tenants to a third party severs a joint tenancy with right of survivorship. Robert W. Swenson Ronan E. Degnan, Severance of Joint Tenancies, 38 Minn. L. Rev. 466, 478 (1954); 4A Richard R. Powell, Real Property 618 (1982) (citing Reilly v. Sageser, 2 Wn. App. 6, 467 P.2d 358 (1970)). Jurisdictions holding that a contract of sale by both or all joint tenants to a third party automatically severs or terminates the tenancy include: Alabama, Arizona, California, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Jurisdictions which hold that a severance does not automatically occur upon signing of a contract of sale by both or all joint tenants to a third party, absent circumstances indicating an intent to sever the tenancy, include: California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Sara L. Johnson, Annotation, Contract of Sale or Granting of Option To Purchase, to Third Party, by Both or All of Joint Tenants or Tenants by Entirety as Severing or Terminating Tenancy, 39 A.L.R.4th 1068 (1985).

  2. Hegewald v. Neal

    28 Wn. App. 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 3 times

    One of these rights is the right to seek partition. Reilly v. Sageser, 2 Wn. App. 6, 467 P.2d 358 (1970). A partition action is analogous to any type of dissolution proceeding and does not involve a "taking" in the constitutional sense.

  3. Merrick v. Peterson

    25 Wn. App. 248 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 18 times
    In Merrick, the parties held a promissory note as joint tenants with right of survivorship.Merrick does not hold that execution of an earnest money agreement with a third party is inconsistent with a joint tenancy.

    [6] However, any agreement subsequently executed which is inconsistent with the joint tenancy converts it into a tenancy in common. Reilly v. Sageser, 2 Wn. App. 6, 467 P.2d 358 (1970). In the present case, the stipulation did, in fact, change an essential element of a joint tenancy.

  4. Cummings v. Anderson

    22 Wn. App. 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 5 times

    Generally, a cotenant has a right to partition in the absence of estoppel, waiver or a valid agreement to the contrary. See Carter v. Weowna Beach Community Corp., 71 Wn.2d 498, 429 P.2d 201 (1967); Reilly v. Sageser, 2 Wn. App. 6, 467 P.2d 358 (1970). If a court cannot divide the property equally, the property should be sold and the proceeds divided equally, Williamson Inv. Co. v. Williamson, 96 Wn. 529, 535, 165 P. 385 (1917), subject to the equities, with allowances for improvements and excess contributions.