## Facts

- Alfred Williams, Jr. (husband) and Gwendolyn C. Williams (wife) were married in Texas in 1953 and later lived in the District of Columbia.
- The couple moved from their former residence in the District of Columbia to a newly purchased home in Maryland (2007 Hannon Street, Lewisdale, Maryland).
- The husband paid the purchase price for the Maryland home, but title was taken in both spouses’ names as tenants by the entirety.
- About one month after the Maryland purchase, the wife left the husband, returned to the District of Columbia, and the trial court found she deserted him.
- The husband filed for divorce in the District of Columbia; the wife’s District residency supplied the jurisdictional basis for the divorce action.
- The trial court granted the husband an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion.
- In deciding the spouses’ rights in the Maryland property, the trial court applied District of Columbia law, treated the wife’s interest as a conditional gift, and ordered the wife to convey her interest in the Maryland home to the husband.
- The wife appealed, challenging only the trial court’s choice of law for determining ownership interests in the Maryland real estate.

## Issues

1. In a District of Columbia divorce, did the trial court err by applying District of Columbia property law (including its conditional-gift rule) rather than Maryland law to determine the spouses’ interests in Maryland real property held as tenants by the entirety?

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held the trial court used the wrong controlling law for the Maryland real estate.
- Because the property was located in Maryland, Maryland law governed the nature and extent of the parties’ ownership interests in that land.
- The appellate court reversed the portion of the judgment ordering conveyance of the wife’s interest based on District of Columbia law.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the parties’ respective interests in the Maryland property under Maryland law.
- The divorce decree itself was left intact; the error concerned only the property ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Rights and interests in real property are generally governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the land is located (the law of the situs).
- A court may have jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage and still be required to use another state’s substantive law to decide ownership interests in out-of-state real estate.
- Under District of Columbia law (as reflected in D.C. Code § 16-910 and Moore v. Moore), when one spouse buys property but places title in both spouses as tenants by the entirety, the other spouse’s interest may be treated as a gift conditioned on continuation of the marriage; desertion followed by divorce on that ground can allow divestiture.
- That District of Columbia rule cannot be used to define or alter title-based interests in Maryland land; Maryland law controls those interests because Maryland is the situs.
- When the forum court’s property order turns on the spouses’ ownership interests in foreign land, the forum must first determine those interests under situs law before granting relief tied to those interests.

## Conclusion

Williams v. Williams holds that, although the District of Columbia had jurisdiction to grant the divorce, it was required to apply Maryland law to determine the spouses’ respective interests in Maryland real property titled as a tenancy by the entirety; the D.C. trial court’s conveyance order based on D.C.’s conditional-gift doctrine was reversed and the case was remanded to decide the property issue under Maryland situs law.


Williams v. Williams, 390 A.2d 4 (1978)