|
|
property law
Marital owners
English common law, after some hesitancy, adopted a regime of
separate marital property. The wife had her property, the husband his. The only things
that they owned together were things that had been conveyed to them together in a form of
tenancy known as tenancy by the entirety (which still exists in a number of American
jurisdictions). Tenancy by entirety is like joint tenancy in that the surviving spouse
takes the whole of the property upon the death of the other spouse. It differs from joint
tenancy in that it is not possible for one of the spouses to convey his or her interest so
as to defeat the survivorship right of the other. (See marriage law.) At common law, each spouse's separate
property in land was subject to an expectancy in the other spouse. If the husband survived
the wife and if a living child had been born to the marriage, the husband was entitled to curtesy, a life estate in all the
lands of which his wife was seised during the marriage. If the wife survived the husband,
she was entitled to dower, a
life estate in one-third of all the land of which her husband was seised during the
marriage. The 19th-century Married Women's Property Acts had
little effect on this basic system. The acts removed the husband's power to control his
wife's property during the marriage, and they made it clear that the wife had the capacity
to own personal property separate from her husband, but the basic scheme of separate
property, curtesy, and dower remained. (See Married Women's Property Acts.) What changed the system was the great increase in the amount of wealth held in personal
property. Such property was the subject of neither dower nor curtesy. In the United
States, although not in England, most jurisdictions provided for a forced share for
widows. Under the forced-share system, the widow could waive her dower and any interest
that she stood to take under her husband's will and take instead a share (normally a third
or a half) of her husband's net estate. The movement for equality for women in the latter half of the 20th century wrought
another change in this system. Today, most American jurisdictions provide for a forced
spousal share rather than simply a widow's share. Interests denominated dower and curtesy
still exist in some jurisdictions, but they have been made sex-equal. In the civil-law jurisdictions and in eight states of the United
States, a different system of marital property prevails. As in the common-law system,
husband and wife each have their separate property, but this is only the property they had
prior to the marriage or property they received by gift or inheritance during the
marriage. All property that is the result of earnings of either spouse during the marriage
is community property, as are,
in some of the civil-law jurisdictions, all movables. Separate property descends to the
heirs of the spouse who holds the property, but community property is generally divided in
half upon the death of the first spouse to die. Half of it goes to the surviving spouse
and half of it to the heirs of the first-dying spouse. Other community-property
jurisdictions give the first-dying spouse's portion of the community to the surviving
spouse, at least in the absence of a testamentary disposition to the contrary. Both the common-law and the community-property systems arose at a time when divorce was
not as common as it is today. In common-law property jurisdictions the tendency now is to
allow the judge wide discretion to divide the property of a divorcing couple without
regard to who holds title to what. In community-property jurisdictions the tendency is to
divide the community and to leave the separate property with the spouse who has title to
it. The importance of marital property for the concept of property in the West cannot be overestimated. Although spouses have some power to change their marital property arrangements by private agreement, most married people in the West today live under a regime either of community property or of separate property subject to division upon divorce and to a forced share in the surviving spouse. One might well question to what extent any Westerner who is married can be said to have individual property when his or her spouse has so much of a stake in it.
|
|
Modified Monday, July 13, 2009 Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |