Reading RPLS is free for the whole profession. Members post, reply, and get the members-only rooms.
Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
Translate
▼
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
Oklahoma, like many other states, is a joint tenancy state. We own what we own along with our significant others.
In the preparation of the multitude of legal documents I prepare each month I have, from time to time, used the term et ux. when naming property owners. I usually only do so in a perpetuatory manner. I really don't care whether the estate is held as joint tenants or tenant in common.
Anyway, a client asked me (after a number of years of wondering) what it meant. I explained and I could hear his eyes glazing over as I spoke over the phone.
After a little looking I found this article by a Kristin Collins, Terms of Art. And although the article is 12 years old, it is still a good explanation.
I emailed it to my client with glazed-over eyes...:snarky:
Posted : February 24, 2015 11:54 am
Translate
▼
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
Not sure the article would cause any un-glazing.
I haven't researched the cited case, but it seems to me that justice would have required the couple to show how lack of specific notice in the wife's name caused her to not know about the tax sale, rather than just saying that the notice wasn't good enough on the face of it. Otherwise, the court just created a new and unneeded loophole.
Posted : February 24, 2015 12:11 pm