In any action involving the judicial sale of real property for the purpose of satisfying the claims of creditors of an owner of an interest in the property, the spouse of the owner may be made a party to the action, and the dower interest of the spouse, whether inchoate or otherwise, may be subjected to the sale without the consent of the spouse. The court shall determine the present value and priority of the dower interest in accordance with section 2131.01 of the Revised Code and shall award the spouse a sum of money equal to the present value of the dower interest, to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale according to the priority of the interest. To the extent that the owner and the owner's spouse are both liable for the indebtedness, the dower interest of the spouse is subordinate to the claims of their common creditors.
In Re Miller, 151 B.R. 800 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1992). · cites it 8דOhio Rev.Code § 2103.041 (Anderson 1990) states that “[t]o the extent that the owner and his spouse are both liable for the indebtedness, the dower interest of the spouse is subordinate to the claims of their common creditors.”
In Re Wycuff, 332 B.R. 297 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 4דIn In re Miller, it was held It is this court’s view that the American Experience Table, expressly made applicable to cases involving judicial sale by Ohio Rev.Code § 2103.041, is the better choice.”
In Re Rosario, 402 B.R. 223 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 5דOhio Rev.Code § 2103.041. The value of the dower interest is determined by the present value of a life estate in the property, based upon the age of the spouse with the dower interest.”
In re Whitt, 534 B.R. 320 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2015). · cites it 7דAlthough dower rights are, in one sense, “inchoate” 3 because they are contingent, the right to dower is statutorily protected, “whether inchoate or otherwise,” from judicial sales of real property.”
Stand Energy Corp. v. Epler, 837 N.E.2d 1229 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2דDespite the contingent, inchoate nature of a dower interest prior to the owner-spouse’s death, a judicial sale of the property during the owner-spouse’s lifetime does not vitiate the other spouse’s dower interest. Rather, in an action involving a judicial sale, a court must…”
BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Kolenich, 958 N.E.2d 194 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “Upon review, we note that the totality of her claim alleges that she “has statutory rights in the subject property pursuant to R.C. 2103.041” and that she is “entitled to the remedies provided by law.”
State v. Thrower, 610 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3דEconomou further attempts to invoke R.C. 2103.041, which protects dower rights, “whether inchoate or otherwise,” from judicial sales of real property.”
Gen. Elec. Credit Union v. Medow, 2016 Ohio 3266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3דSee R.C. 2103.041. But each party contends that its respective interest has priority over that held by the other party.”
In Re Rudicil, 343 B.R. 181 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 2דAlthough admitting a complete lack of supporting authority, Debtors propose that the court apply lien avoidance under § 522(f) as if it were in conjunction with a state judicial foreclosure proceeding or § 363 sale in bankruptcy.”
In Re Martz, 293 B.R. 409 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2002). “Sections 2103.041, 2131.01, and 5731.01(B) of the Ohio Revised Code set forth that this value should be ascertained by “the price at which such property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller[.”
Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Lambert (In Re Lambert), 57 B.R. 710 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1986). “, § 2103.041 (p. 1976 Supp.). Thusly, it becomes clear that it is the dower interest, which is capable of valuation, that comes into the debtor’s estate, and not the property itself which is titled in the name of the non-debtor spouse.”
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.