## Facts

- Vestal Robinson and Ruby Robinson, husband and wife, owned real property in Trousdale County, Tennessee, as tenants by the entirety.
- Trousdale County took a portion of the property to widen an adjacent public road.
- The Robinsons filed an inverse-condemnation action seeking compensation for the land taken and incidental damages.
- The County asserted the claim was barred because Mr. Robinson alone had executed a deed conveying the relevant property to the County in fee simple.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court held Mr. Robinson was estopped by his deed, found no incidental damages, and awarded Mrs. Robinson $530 as the value of the land taken.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed except it ordered the $530 held and invested with distribution contingent on survivorship (or divorce), including a scenario in which the proceeds would be paid to the County if Mrs. Robinson died first.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted only Mrs. Robinson’s petition for review, limiting argument to disposition of the $530 recovery.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee law treating tenancy by the entirety through common-law coverture principles gives the husband superior rights that can control disposition of proceeds from a taking.
2. How just-compensation proceeds for land held by the entirety must be owned and distributed when the husband alone executed a deed to the condemning authority.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court clarified Tennessee law governing tenancy by the entirety and rejected coverture-based unequal control by the husband.
- The Court held spouses in an estate by the entirety have equal, present, concurrent rights in the property, including use and control and the right to share in its benefits.
- The Court ruled that one spouse cannot unilaterally alienate or burden entirety property in a way that prejudices the other spouse’s equal interest.
- The Court modified the Court of Appeals’ disposition scheme and awarded the $530 condemnation recovery to Mrs. Robinson, not as a contingent survivorship interest and not subject to reversion to the County.

## Legal Principles

- The common-law disability of coverture is not applied to tenancy by the entirety; husband and wife are treated as equals regarding their interests in entirety property.
- Each spouse has a present, equal, concurrent right to the use, control, income, rents, and profits of entirety property.
- A unilateral conveyance by one spouse cannot defeat or impair the other spouse’s equal interest in entirety property.
- Just compensation for a governmental taking of entirety property must respect each spouse’s present, protectable interest and cannot be made contingent in a manner that diverts compensation to the condemning authority based on survivorship.

## Conclusion

The court modernized Tennessee’s treatment of tenancy by the entirety by rejecting coverture-based superiority of the husband, recognizing equal present rights in both spouses, and holding that the County could not rely on the husband’s unilateral deed to control or reclaim condemnation proceeds; Mrs. Robinson received the $530 award for the taking.


Robinson v. Trousdale County, 516 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. 1974)