Legal Opinion · Dissent

Estate of Croteau v. Croteau

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 8, 1998No. 96-544Published

1DissentJohnson, J.

The majority opinion holds that because the Croteaus’ divorce decree did not provide outright for severance of the parties’ joint tenancy, George Croteau retained his right of survivorship in the Bow Street property. I believe that in divorce proceedings such as this, where the divorce decree disposes of jointly held property in a manner inconsistent with an intent to maintain a right of survivorship, we should construe the decree to provide for a severance of the joint tenancy. Accordingly, 1 respectfully dissent.

*184Unlike my colleagues, I do not believe that the language in Mamalis v.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Mamalis v. BornovasSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
  2. Mann v. BradleySupreme Court of Colorado · 1975
  3. Wardlow v. PozziCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. Bradley v. MannColorado Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. Poulson v. PoulsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1950

6 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