Also known as: tenant by curtesy · curtesy tenant · curtesy · tenancy by the curtesy
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A life estate that a surviving husband holds in real property of which his wife was seised during the marriage of an inheritable estate. The interest arises only when issue born alive and capable of inheriting was produced by the marriage. The estate is measured as though the wife had held fee simple absolute yet remains subordinate to any remainder, executory interest, possibility of reverter, power of termination, or reversion that limited her estate.
Theresa Tucker held Greenacre under a conveyance that would revert to the grantor if she died without surviving issue. After Theresa died without surviving issue, her husband Thaddeus Tran petitioned for a life estate as tenant by the curtesy. The court awarded him the life estate measured as though Theresa had held fee simple absolute, but the estate remained subordinate to the grantor’s possibility of reverter.
Tara Tran received a farm under a deed to her and the heirs of her body. Tara died survived by her husband Tyrone Tran and by their son. Tyrone claimed a life estate as tenant by the curtesy. The court granted the life estate measured as though Tara had held fee simple absolute, subject only to the remainder limited on the fee tail.
Tessa Takahashi held land under a conveyance limited to her and the heirs of her body for her lifetime only. After Tessa died without surviving issue, her husband Tanner Thompson asserted a life estate as tenant by the curtesy. The court recognized the life estate measured as though Tessa had held fee simple absolute, yet held it subordinate to the remainder that followed the limited fee tail.
A wife received a territorial land grant that would inure to her husband upon perfection. Before the grant was completed the couple divorced. The former husband later claimed an interest as tenant by the curtesy in the perfected title. The court denied the claim because the divorce had ended the marriage before any seisin of an inheritable estate arose.
David S. Maynard and Lydia A. Maynard were husband and wife when David left their home in Ohio to seek opportunities in the western territories. Upon his arrival in the Territory of Oregon, David settled upon public land under the donation act of Congress of September 27, 1850, claiming 640 acres as a married settler to obtain the grant for himself and his wife. Subsequently, on December 22, 1852, the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Oregon passed a special act declaring the bonds of matrimony between David S. Maynard and his wife dissolved. David subsequently remarried another woman after the divorce took effect. Lydia received no notice of the legislative proceeding and received no support from David after his departure from Ohio, leaving her without resources during this period. Lydia A. Maynard filed a bill of complaint in the courts of the Territory asserting rights to the east half of the donation claim and alleging that no cause existed for the divorce.
View caseYes. The surviving spouse receives a life estate measured as though the deceased had held fee simple absolute. The interest remains subordinate to any remainder, executory interest, possibility of reverter, power of termination, or reversion that limited the fee tail.
Supporting sources
No. The reversion does not destroy the interest. The surviving spouse receives the life estate, but the estate is subordinate to the reversion once the fee tail ends for want of issue.
Supporting sources
No. The spouse still receives the life estate measured by fee simple standards. The life estate is merely subordinate to the power of termination if the condition for exercise ever occurs.
Supporting sources
No. Curtesy requires that the deceased spouse have been seised of an inheritable estate during the marriage. A life estate supplies no such seisin and therefore supports no curtesy claim.
Supporting sources
…the marriage relation, were gone. A wife divorced has no right of dower in his property; a husband divorced has no right by the curtesy in her lands, unless the statute authorizing the divorce specially confers such right. It follows that the wife was not entitled to the east half of the donation claim. To entitle her to…