Constitution Bank v. Olson
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentCirillo, Judge
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision which, in my opinion, adheres far too rigidly to the elements of tenancy by the entireties without considering the inequitable results in this case. Equity requires us to consider not only the rights and interests of Robert and Elizabeth Olson, but the rights and interests of Constitution Bank as well.
Tenancy by the entireties is a “unique form of co-ownership grounded in the common law concept that husband and wife were but one legal entity.” Clingerman v. Sadowski, 513 Pa. 179, 519 A.2d 378 (1986). Essentially, a tenancy by the entireties…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Madden v. Glosztonyi Savings & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Shapiro v. ShapiroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- DiFlorido v. DiFloridoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Schweitzer v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Clingerman v. SadowskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.