## Facts

- Reuben Melenky conveyed certain real property by deed to his son, Asher Melen.
- The conveyance was accompanied by an oral promise from Asher to reconvey the property to Reuben upon Reuben’s request.
- After the conveyance, Reuben married the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff alleged she married Reuben in reliance on his statement that he owned the property where Asher was living.
- Reuben later asked Asher to reconvey the property to him.
- Asher refused to convey the fee simple title, but deeded Reuben a life estate in the property.
- Reuben accepted the life estate deed and, although he could have pursued his claimed right to compel reconveyance of the fee, did not do so.
- The plaintiff brought suit seeking to enforce an inchoate right of dower in the property.
- The trial court entered judgment for Asher.
- The appellate court reversed, and Asher sought further review.

## Issues

1. Whether a पत्नी may enforce an inchoate dower interest in land where her husband had previously deeded the land away and, during the marriage, held at most a personal claim based on an oral promise to reconvey, especially after the husband accepted only a life estate and did not pursue the fee.

## Decision

- The court held that the plaintiff could not establish or enforce an inchoate right of dower in the fee simple interest under these circumstances.
- Because Reuben was not seized of an estate of inheritance in the property during the marriage (and had accepted only a life estate while declining to pursue any claim to the fee), the predicate for dower in the fee was not shown.
- The court rejected the attempt to use the plaintiff’s dower claim to press a right that Reuben himself did not enforce after accepting the life estate.
- Disposition: the appellate court’s reversal was set aside and the trial court’s judgment for Asher was reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- Dower in real property depends on the husband having been seized, during coverture, of an estate of inheritance in the land; a mere personal claim to acquire title is not the same as such seisin.
- A spouse’s inchoate dower right is derivative of the other spouse’s qualifying property interest; it does not create a separate power to compel conveyance of a fee simple interest where the spouse with the claim accepted a lesser estate and did not pursue the larger one.
- An oral understanding to reconvey, without more, may leave the grantor with at most a chose in action; where the grantor does not enforce that claim and instead accepts a deed for a life estate, a later dower claimant cannot treat the fee as still belonging to the grantor for dower purposes.

## Conclusion

In *Melenky v. Melen*, the court denied the wife’s effort to enforce an inchoate dower interest in fee simple title to property that her husband had deeded to his son before their marriage under an oral reconveyance promise, where the husband later accepted only a life estate and did not pursue any claim to compel reconveyance of the fee; accordingly, the judgment for the son was upheld.


Melenky v. Melen, 134 N.E. 822 (1922)