## Facts

- Bettye Shannon and Henry Jones owned their marital home as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.
- After they divorced, they executed a separation agreement that was incorporated into the divorce judgment.
- The agreement stated that the home would remain jointly owned until it could be sold in a commercially reasonable manner.
- The agreement gave Shannon the exclusive right to possess the home while it was listed for sale.
- The agreement required that, after the sale, creditors would be paid and any remaining proceeds would be divided equally between Shannon and Henry.
- Henry later married Aretha Jones and purported to convey to Aretha his interest in the home that he had held with Shannon.
- Henry died intestate three years after the purported conveyance; the home had not been sold at the time of his death.
- Acting individually and as representative of Henry’s estate, Aretha sought to quiet title and to obtain a court-ordered sale of the home.
- Shannon and Aretha filed competing motions for summary judgment; the trial court denied Aretha’s motion and entered summary judgment for Shannon.
- Aretha appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the divorce judgment incorporating the separation agreement sever the joint tenancy with right of survivorship and convert the parties’ ownership into a tenancy in common?

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Shannon and remanded.
- The court held that the divorce judgment’s requirement that the home be sold and that the net proceeds be divided equally was inconsistent with continued survivorship and showed an intent to terminate the joint tenancy.
- Because survivorship did not control after the divorce judgment, Shannon was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the theory that she became sole owner upon Henry’s death; further proceedings were required to resolve title and appropriate relief.

## Legal Principles

- A joint tenancy with right of survivorship may be terminated by a divorce judgment (including an incorporated settlement agreement) when the judgment shows an intent inconsistent with survivorship.
- In determining whether survivorship was terminated, courts read the divorce judgment and incorporated agreement as a whole and focus on the parties’ expressed intent, not on isolated labels such as “joint ownership.”
- Provisions requiring the property to be sold and directing that net sale proceeds be divided between the former spouses are inconsistent with survivorship because they treat each spouse as having a separate, share-based economic interest.
- Once converted to a tenancy in common, each former spouse holds an undivided interest that can pass through conveyance or intestate succession rather than transferring automatically to the survivor.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment for Shannon because the divorce judgment’s sale-and-equal-division provisions terminated the parties’ joint tenancy with right of survivorship and created a tenancy in common, so Shannon could not claim sole ownership based on survivorship after Henry’s death; the case was remanded for further proceedings on title and remedies.


Jones v. Shannon, 40 So. 3d 717 (2009)