Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttrial
contractdefendanttrial

Related Cases

Fanning v. Fanning, 828 S.W.2d 135
View Case »
Biggers v. Crook, 283 Ga. 50, 656 S.E.2d 835, 08 FCDR 217
View Case »
Butler v. Anderson, 163 Ga.App. 547, 295 S.E.2d 216
View Case »
Tiffany & Co. v. Boston Club, Inc., 231 F.Supp. 836, 143 U.S.P.Q. 2
View Case »
United States v. Cress, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2015 WL 12855953, 118 A.F.T.R.2d 2016-6600
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Konecny v. von Gunten, 151 Colo. 376, 379 P.2d 158

Facts

Adolph F. Konecny died intestate, leaving behind his wife Rose and children from a prior marriage. The administrator of Adolph's estate, Louis E. von Gunten, filed an action against Rose, claiming she possessed assets belonging to the estate. The parties had previously accumulated properties and operated a greenhouse business together. They had entered into a contract for the sale of the greenhouse property and held several promissory notes, which were claimed to be jointly owned. The trial court found that Adolph and Rose held these assets as tenants in common.

Adolph F. Konecny died intestate on December 11, 1957, his wife Rose M. Konecny, hereinafter referred to as the defendant or Rose, and several children of a prior marriage, surviving.

Issue

Did Adolph Konecny have an interest in the promissory notes and the contract for the sale of the greenhouse property that would pass to the administrator of his estate upon his death?

Did Adolph Konecny have an interest in the promissory notes and the contract for the sale of the greenhouse property that would pass to the administrator of his estate upon his death?

Rule

To create a joint tenancy with survivorship rights, there must be specific language manifesting such intent; otherwise, the ownership is presumed to be a tenancy in common.

To create a joint tenancy with survivorship rights, there must be specific language manifesting such intent; otherwise, the ownership is presumed to be a tenancy in common.

Analysis

The court determined that both Adolph and Rose had an interest in the eighteen promissory notes and the contract for the sale of the greenhouse property, which were held as tenants in common. The stipulations indicated that both were alternative payees on the notes and that they had jointly accumulated the assets. The court rejected Rose's argument that the use of 'or' in the notes indicated a lack of interest for Adolph, affirming that the absence of survivorship language meant they were tenants in common.

The court determined that both Adolph and Rose had an interest in the eighteen promissory notes and the contract for the sale of the greenhouse property, which were held as tenants in common.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Adolph had an undivided one-half interest in the assets but reversed the monetary judgment against Rose, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine the correct amount owed.

The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Adolph had an undivided one-half interest in the assets but reversed the monetary judgment against Rose.

Who won?

The administrator of Adolph's estate prevailed in establishing that Adolph had an interest in the assets, but the court ruled in favor of Rose regarding the monetary judgment, as it did not accurately reflect the unpaid balances.

The administrator of Adolph's estate prevailed in establishing that Adolph had an interest in the assets, but the court ruled in favor of Rose regarding the monetary judgment.

You must be