Legal Opinion

Central National Bank v. Fitzwilliam

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1984No. 83-1325PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, C.J.

We are asked today to determine whether the General Assembly, in enacting R.C. 5302.17, intended to allow spouses to hold property in such a manner that one spouse cannot alienate the property absent the consent of the other spouse.

R.C. 5302.17 provides:

“A deed conveying any interest in real property to a husband and wife, and in substance following the form set forth in this section, when duly executed in accordance with Chapter 5301. of the Revised Code, creates an estate by the entireties in the grantees, and upon the death of either, conveys such interest to the survivor, his or her…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lang v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Donvito v. CriswellOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Koster v. BoudreauxOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Sergeant v. SteinbergerOhio Supreme Court · 1826

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Coraccio v. Lowell Five Cents Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
  2. Ransier v. McFarland (In Re McFarland)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1994
  3. Costell v. Costell (In Re Costell)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 1987
  4. Wagner v. GalipoOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Finneran v. Associates Financial Services (In Re Blair)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1992

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API