Cheryl L. Underwood v. Thomas Bunger, in his capacity as the personal representative of the estate of Kenneth K. Kinney Judith M. Fulford and Sheree Demming, 70 N.E.3d 338

Grantor conveyed Bloomington property by warranty deed (July 25, 2002) to three grantees: Cheryl Underwood, Kenneth Kinney (Husband), and Judith Fulford (Wife), described in the deed as "Cheryl L. Underwood, and Kenneth K. Kinney and Judith M. Fulford, husband and wife, all as Tenants‑in‑Common."
Kinney and Fulford were married at the time of conveyance; Kinney died in November 2014.
In 2014, a separate six‑figure judgment (Demming Judgment) was entered against Kinney and Underwood and became a lien on the Property; that judgment was later affirmed on appeal.
Underwood filed to partition and sell the Property (April 2015), asserting the three held as tenants in common and seeking distribution; Demming and Kinney’s estate (Bunger, PR) opposed, arguing Kinney had no individual interest (entireties with Wife) so his interest did not pass to the estate and the Demming lien did not attach to Wife’s share.
Trial court and Court of Appeals held the deed did not overcome the statutory/common‑law presumption of tenancy by the entirety as to Kinney and Fulford; the Supreme Court reversed, holding the deed’s unambiguous language rebutted the presumption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deed overcame statutory/common‑law presumption that spouses take as tenants by the entirety	Underwood: Deed expressly conveys to three grantees "all as Tenants‑in‑Common," so spouses did not hold by entireties and Kinney’s interest passed to his estate	Bunger/Demming: Phrase "husband and wife" indicates an entireties estate; the presumption should control unless deed manifestly shows otherwise	The Supreme Court held the deed rebutted the presumption: "all as Tenants‑in‑Common" unambiguously created a tenancy in common among all three grantees, defeating entireties.
Whether Underwood’s petition contained a judicial admission conceding entireties ownership (estopping her)	Underwood: Paragraph alleging she held an "undivided one‑half interest" and the other two held the remaining one‑half as tenants‑in‑common merely describes proportions, not legal form	Bunger/Demming: That pleading admitted a one‑half undivided interest and supports the trial court’s entireties finding	Court held the pleading did not constitute a fatal judicial admission; "undivided interest" describes share size and is consistent with the deed’s terms.

United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002) (discusses forms of concurrent ownership and entireties concept)
Powell v. Estate of Powell, 14 N.E.3d 46 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (treats modern concurrent‑ownership principles)
Hadlock v. Gray, 4 N.E. 167 (Ind. 1886) (historic rule that conveyance to husband and wife creates tenancy by entireties)
Kilgore v. Templer, 125 N.E. 457 (Ind. 1919) (explains survivorship and indivisibility of entireties estate)
Whitlock v. Public Service Co. of Ind., 159 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. 1959) (entireties estate shields survivor from decedent’s individual debts)
Lutz v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 848 N.E.2d 675 (Ind. 2006) (pleading admissions binding unless withdrawn)
Bunger v. Demming, 40 N.E.3d 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (prior appellate decision affirming the underlying damages judgment)