Advertisement

April 15, 2014

"Novel" Joint Tenancy Argument May Protect Real Property Assets of Madoff Widow

Professor James Webster defines the issue of rights of survivorship, as to a joint tenancy, as follows:

"The most important characteristic of the joint tenancy is the right of survivorship, which means that upon the death of one joint tenant, his interest in property jointly owned enures to the benefit of the surviving joint tenant or joint tenants.  Upon the death of a joint tenant the surviving joint tenant or joint tenants take nothing from the decedent but instead take the whole by virtue of the original conveyance which created the joint tenancy; the surviving joint tenant or joint tenants take the whole which has been owned all the time.  If all joint tenants die except one, the survivor owns the whole property in severalty.  The heirs or spouse of a deceased joint tenant take nothing upon his death.  A joint tenant cannot devise his interest upon his death."

Webster's Real Estate Law In North Carolina, section 7.02[2] (2011).

In other words, if one joint tenant dies, the decedent's ownership interest in that real property essentially evaporates and the surviving joint tenant owns the real property alone and outright.

Dry, though, this topic may be, it's proving instrumental in Trustee Irving Picard's efforts to wrest two properties away from Stephanie Mack, the widow of Bernie Madoff's deceased (by suicide) son Mark Madoff.

As reported today in the Wall Street Journal, "Ms. Mack's lawyers have made novel legal arguments about why the trustee can't touch either the two properties she owned jointly with Mark Madoff."  It seems Ms. Mack's attorneys are arguing that the two pieces of real estate—a loft in Manhattan's SoHo neighborhood and a waterfront house in Nantucket—automatically became hers alone, as joint tenant with a right of survivorship, when Mark Madoff died in December 2010.  Importantly, at the time of her husband's suicide, Ms. Mack was not named in Trustee Picard's lawsuit.  What's amazing, in a morose twist, the deadline for naming Ms. Macks in the lawsuit apparently expired on the day of Mr. Madoff's suicide and, thus, the day Ms. Mack claims title to the two properties vested in her, solely.  

Are you wondering about the value of the homes?  So am I.  The article continues that that the loft was purchased in 2005 for "nearly $6.1 million" and the Nantucket home "cost $6.5 million".

With some sharp legal minds at work on solving Bernie Madoff's mess, wading in the waters of "high" finance, it's good to see a relatively straightforward "joint tenancy" argument hit a Wall Street Journal reporter (and perhaps Mr. Picard, himself) as "novel".

Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Michael C Thelen, Womble Carlyle Firm, Litigation Attorney
Attorney

Mike represents myriad clients – from Fortune 500® companies to smaller, privately-owned organizations – in cross sections of business throughout the many stages of federal and state litigation.  From his years of practice in New York and North Carolina, Mike primarily has experience in the areas of land use, local/municipal government law and real estate litigation, having handled zoning, development agreement, land use planning, eminent domain and condemnation, construction, retail and commercial landlord-tenant, partnership dissolution, state law torts, and civil...

919-755-2154

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.