Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 557 / Act 210 of 1927

Mich. Comp. Laws § 557.101

Tenancy by entirety; termination.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TERMINATION OF TENANCIES BY ENTIRETY


Act 210 of 1927


557.101 Tenancy by entirety; termination.

Sec. 1.

    In all cases where husband and wife own any interest in land as tenants by the entirety, such tenancy by the entirety may be terminated by a conveyance from either one to the other of his or her interest in the land so held.

History: 1927, Act 210, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 13069 ;-- CL 1948, 557.101

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1952–2010 · leading case: Reed v. Reed
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reed v. Reed (2005) michctapp · cites it 6× “§ 557.101, [2] which governs termination of a tenancy by the entirety, the quitclaim deed was invalid.”
United States v. Craft (2002) scotus · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 557.101 (West 1988); see also United States v.”
Tkachik v. Mandeville (2010) mich · cites it 2× “The one exception to this rule is statutory: MCL 557.101 allows either spouse to convey to the other spouse his interest in the property, which thereby terminates the tenancy by the entirety.”
In Re Spears (2004) miwd · cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 557.101 (West 1988).”
Tamplin v. Tamplin (1987) michctapp · cites it 3× “The trial court construed MCL 557.101; MSA 26.201 as not permitting a tenant by the entirety to deed his or her interest to anyone other than the cotenant without the cotenant’s approval and signature on the deed.”
DeYoung v. Mesler (1964) mich · cites it 2× “Its familiarity with such language of entirety ownership is demonstrated by PA 1927, No 210 (CL 1948, §§ 557.101, 557.102 [Stat Ann 1957 Rev §§ 26.”
Hearns v. Hearns (1952) mich “CL 1948, § 557.101 (Stat Ann § 26.201). The effectiveness of an attempted conveyance by one tenant by the entireties to a stranger to the title is a matter of different character.”
Blachy v. Butcher (1998) miwd “§ 557.101. To the extent Defendants are contending that no Defendant in this case possesses an interest in the property, however, the argument is without merit.”
Lappo v. Negus (1961) mich “CL 1948, § 557.101 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 26.201). Further, the language providing for continuation “until further notice” is completely at odds with interpreting this agreement as a conveyance.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.