You are here: / / THE VIRGINIA DIVORCE DID NOT CHANGE THE PARTIES’ STATUS FROM TENANTS...

THE VIRGINIA DIVORCE DID NOT CHANGE THE PARTIES’ STATUS FROM TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY TO TENANTS IN COMMON FOR THEIR NEW YORK MARITAL RESIDENCE; NEW YORK FOLLOWS THE “DIVISIBLE DIVORCE” DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the Virginia divorce did not affect the couple’s status as tenants by the entirety for the marital home n New York:

The plaintiff contends that the tenancy by the entirety dissolved by operation of law when the Virginia divorce decree was entered, and that the ownership interest in the subject property transformed from a tenancy by the entirety to a tenancy in common … . New York, however, follows the “divisible divorce” doctrine, pursuant to which the ex parte Virginia divorce decree, obtained without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, terminated the parties’ status as husband and wife, but had no effect on the defendant’s property rights … . In conformity with this doctrine, it is well established that an ex parte foreign divorce decree cannot divest the nonappearing spouse of his or her rights in a New York tenancy by the entirety … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution requires only that New York recognize that the Virginia divorce decree dissolved the parties’ marital status … . Thus, the tenancy by the entirety in which the parties own their marital home has not been terminated. Bernhardt v Schneider, 2021 NY Slip Op 00407, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

You might also like
A SMALL AMOUNT OF COCAINE IN PLAIN VIEW IN DEFENDANT DRIVER’S POCKET DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP (SECOND DEPT).
LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.
SURROGATE’S COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ABROGATE OR VACATE A FOREIGN ORDER OF ADOPTION.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A U-TURN TO PURSUE A VEHICLE AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A WORKER UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6), HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, BY CONTRACT, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY AT THE WORKSITE AND SUPERVISED THE WORK; THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND POTENTIALLY LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO TOWERS, TWICE THE HEIGHT OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS, DID NOT VIOLATE THE NYC ZONING RESOLUTION, THEREFORE THE NYC PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for 1983 Action Against Municipality Based On Policy or Custom

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ADMITTING LAW-FIRM BUSINESS... THE HOMEOWNER AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY...