## Facts

- Mary E. D’Ercole and Alghier A. D’Ercole, married for roughly 35 years, bought a home in Waltham, Massachusetts in 1962 and took title as tenants by the entirety.
- Mary asserted she contributed to the household through steady employment, purchase of furnishings, and payment of most household and child-related expenses; the spouses disputed contributions to the down payment.
- By 1971, the marriage broke down; Alghier refused to leave the home, and Mary moved out to live with a relative.
- State probate proceedings were pending: the husband sought divorce; the wife sought legal separation and opposed divorce.
- Alghier refused any arrangement that would give Mary occupancy, rent proceeds, a buyout of her equity, or a sale and division of proceeds.
- Mary sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Massachusetts tenancy-by-the-entirety law—giving the husband exclusive possession and control during marriage—denied her due process and equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Issues

1. Whether Massachusetts’ recognition and enforcement of tenancy by the entirety supplied “state action” sufficient to support a § 1983 claim challenging the estate’s incidents as unconstitutional.
2. Whether the tenancy-by-the-entirety incidents challenged (exclusive possession and control in the husband during marriage) violated equal protection or due process.

## Decision

- The court granted the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the complaint did not allege actionable state action for § 1983 purposes based on the state’s general recognition and enforcement of the tenancy-by-the-entirety form.
- The court further concluded that, even assuming arguendo state action, the allegations did not establish a constitutional violation on the facts pleaded.
- The court noted federal courts’ limited role in using § 1983 to recast state domestic relations and marital property regimes while parallel probate proceedings were pending.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1983 plaintiff must plead deprivation of a federal right caused by action fairly attributable to the State; state recognition or enforcement of generally applicable property rules does not, by itself, convert a privately chosen ownership form into unconstitutional state action.
- A challenge to unequal incidents of a traditional property estate requires a sufficient nexus to affirmative governmental discrimination or classification, not merely the historical structure of an estate selected by private parties.
- Federal courts are cautious about constitutionalizing disputes rooted in marital breakdown and property possession when state domestic relations courts provide avenues for relief.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the wife’s § 1983 action challenging Massachusetts tenancy-by-the-entirety rules, concluding that the alleged inequality stemmed from a privately selected form of ownership and did not present actionable state action or a viable equal-protection or due-process claim in federal court.


D’Ercole v. D’Ercole, 407 F. Supp. 1377 (D. Mass. 1976)