Cahill v. United States
303 Ga. 148
| Ga. | 2018Background
- In 1999 Hall purchased a Roswell, GA property; in April 2005 he and Cahill (his then-wife) executed a quitclaim deed conveying the property to both as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- The couple later divorced; the divorce settlement (incorporated into the final decree) gave Cahill exclusive use and possession of the property until age 66, required both parties to “remain on the title” until sale, and directed that upon sale after Cahill turned 66 the net proceeds be equally divided.
- A federal tax lien was filed against Hall in 2013. Cahill turned 66 in Feb. 2015, continued to live on the property, and died in April 2015; the property had not been listed for sale before her death.
- The Estate filed a quiet title action in federal court seeking a ruling that the divorce decree severed the joint tenancy so Cahill’s estate held a one-half interest. The United States (asserting the tax lien) argued the joint tenancy survived because the decree did not expressly sever it.
- The district court certified the question to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding the effect of the divorce decree on the joint tenancy/right of survivorship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the divorce decree severed the joint tenancy with right of survivorship created by the 2005 deed | Estate: the settlement agreement’s terms (exclusive possession, eventual sale and equal division, and requirement that both remain on title until sale) reflect intent to sever the joint tenancy | United States: absence of express severance indicates the parties intended to retain the right of survivorship | The decree was ambiguous on its face but, read in context and under contract-construction principles, the decree severed the joint tenancy and eliminated the right of survivorship |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Studstill, 251 Ga. 466 (recognition that joint tenancy could be created under Georgia law post-1976)
- DeRyke v. Teets, 288 Ga. 160 (settlement agreements incorporated in divorce decrees are construed under ordinary contract rules)
- Hall v. Day, 273 Ga. 838 (clear, unambiguous settlement terms must be enforced as written)
- Wallace v. Wallace, 260 Ga. 400 (interpreting settlement language that expressly preserved joint tenancy on deed)
- Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49 (definition and treatment of contractual ambiguity)