Volume 11 Number 1
Tips by Tute
11, Number 1
"Every judgment for money rendered in this Commonwealth by any state or federal court or by confession of judgment, as provided by law, shall be a lien on all the real estate of or to which the defendant in the judgment is or becomes possessed or entitled, from the time such judgment is recorded n the judgment lien docket of the clerk's office of the county or city where such land is situated; . . ."
Thank you for your
e-mail. I am delighted to learn
that my website (pause for a crass commercial break:
www.tute.us) came to your attention.
I hope you enjoyed your visit.
For those readers who
may not have read that issue of the Examiner recently, I noted that a purchase
money deed of trust would have priority over a judgment recorded before the
property was purchased. Newer in
Town, employed at the Commonwealth's Department of Taxation, inquires if a
notice of lien filed by that agency would defeat the traditional rules of lien
first answer is the Commonwealth does not have the benefit of a different set of
rules. When the Commonwealth
docketed its lien, deadbeat didn't own the land. If deadbeat and wife take title as tenants by the entirety, the
Commonwealth's lien does not attach. Taking
title as tenants by the entirety is still a defense to a claim of the creditor
of a single spouse, and the Commonwealth (unlike its federal Uncle - see U.S.
vs. Craft, 535 U.S. 274
(2002) has not changed the law on
this issue. If deadbeat takes title
alone, the Commonwealth is like all the other judgment creditors, and has to
fall behind the lender whose financing made the purchase possible. But, before I declare that is my "final" answer, and Regis
sends me off to Disney World, I'll check the Code.
believe the answer is contained in Virginia Code § 58.1-1805, which states:
Sections 8.01-196, et seq., referenced in the general statute, spell out
how the Commonwealth can bring and enforce an action.
Later in that chapter, is the notation that the Commonwealth can decline
to levy on an asset because of a prior encumbrance.
suggests to this humble title examiner that the Commonwealth recognizes
encumbrances can have priority over its lien and has not changed the customary
rules in order to enhance its revenues.
that, Regis, is my "final" answer.
My name is Ilex Sand and I need to outwit my professor. He has given us an assignment and I think I have the answer but want to see what you think, is this a trick? In his example, Jack and Jill are brother and sister. They buy some land in Virginia and have it titled "Jack Smith and Jill Smith, joint tenants." Jill is killed in a car accident and Jill's son Sonny, claims he (as Jill's sole heir) inherits her half. Jack argues the property is all his because when a joint tenant dies, the other joint tenant gets complete title because that is the way joint tenancy ownership works.
I have been researching this for two days and have
come back to the same answers. We have to find the statute which covers the
above situation, and its citation. I
have found statute 55-20 which has been abolished and maybe 55-20.1. Would be
interested to hear your point of view and expertise on this.
The search engines must be working overtime as this
question is the result of another Internet inquiry.
I am so pleased. Jack, however, is not going to be a happy camper under these
You start in the same part of the Code where I would
start. Section 55-20 abolishes
survivorship (unless, as required by §55-21, you show that you really mean it)
including survivorship among "joint tenants."
(Contrary to the phrasing of your question, the statute has not been
abolished; the statute abolishes the common law interpretation.)
At common law, survivorship was implied from the use of the words, but
the legislature preferred a different result.
Section 55-21 added the concept that survivorship was still available if
that intent "manifestly appears from the tenor of the instrument."
Those sections have been the law for many many years. The combination of these two removes "implied" survivorship
from the title examiner's toolbox.
Jack was apparently not the only one confused, as §
55-20.1 goes on to elaborate:
Since your professor said Jack and Jill took title as "joint tenants" without any language "manifesting" their intent for survivorship, they actually end up as tenants in common, as if they hadn't used the words "joint tenants" at all.
To be just a tiny bit heretical, it's like learning a magic spell. Not only do you need to know the words, but you also have to have the rhythm, the incantation, the right number of syllables . . . you've got to say the spell correctly. If you use the words "joint tenants with right of survivorship as at common law, the title examiners of Virginia will read the language you implied ("and ignoring the General Assembly's effort to interfere in our freedom to contract and own property as we wish, our God-given right under the Constitution of the United States and all the best versions of natural law"). Another incantation that works is: "it is the intent of the parties that upon the death of one of the joint tenants, the interest of the deceased joint tenant shall pass by virtue of the principle of survivorship to the surviving joint tenant."
When Jill died, her interest was transferable by will, or absent a will, under the statute of descent and distribution.
The follow-up question here is when did Jill die? Did she have a will? If she had a child, did she have more than one? How about a spouse? Was that spouse also the parent of her children? Depending on the answers to those questions, Sonny may not end up a happy camper either.
I hope that helps.
ps If you have to sign an honor pledge on this assignment, remember to tell the truth . . . you received assistance from "THE unknown title examiner" . . . not just any title examiner whose name you've forgotten!
pps As with all technical questions, and professor's trick questions always qualify, your mileage may vary . . . Balance of standard five page disclaimer omitted here in the interest of bandwidth
I am an SBA attorney trying to prepare deed of trust documents for disaster loans in Virginia. I have a deed similar to that discussed by the Virginia Supreme Court in Camp v. Camp - Mom to Mom and Son, tenants-in-common with the common law right of survivorship. Mom dies. Does survivorship clause get knocked-out, or does Jr. own it? Or will this be a lengthy research trip into Virginia case law for me?
Thank you for any help you may be able to offer.
Dear Ms. Connacht:
Camp v. Camp was pretty definitive. One of the headnotes said "Since the two clauses are absolutely incapable of being reconciled, the rule of repugnant clauses must be applied. The first clause controls and the mother and son take as tenants in common." Of course, the dissent said the majority was mistaken.
If the language in your deed is substantially identical to that in the case (and your e-mail suggests it is very similar), then I would be reporting title vested in the son and the heirs or devisees of the mother (which, if he were an only child, might get you to the same place they thought they would be - one half by deed, one half by intestate succession).
The Court does review when "intent" of the parties is applicable and perhaps the son can fashion a complaint for declaratory judgment which will permit the introduction of the evidence regarding intent. In other cases of which I am aware regarding facts "conflicting" with tenancy (Gant v. Gant (a claim of tenants by the entirety of a divorced couple exploring reconciliation) and Funches v. Funches (a claim of tenants by the entirety of a bigamous spouse), the court did allow evidence of intent. The son has to persuade the Court that those cases are more controlling than Camp.
I am sorry if this answer is disastrous to the son's efforts to renovate the property.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org with
questions or comments about this web site.