In re the Estate of Houghton
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services (N.J. 2010)
- Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. City of Atlantic City (New Jersey Tax Court 1999)
- Feighner v. Sauter (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992)
- Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Department of Treasury (New Jersey Tax Court 1990)
- Mueller Estate v. Transfer Inheritance Tax Bureau, Division of Taxation (New Jersey Tax Court 1983)
- Jutland Construction Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation (New Jersey Tax Court 1982)
- Cherry v. Cherry (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)
- Landmark First National Bank of Fort Lauderdale v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The question in this ease is whether there has been a transfer subject to the transfer inheritance tax, N. J. S. A. 54:34-1 et seq., when a husband and wife, owners of realty as tenants by the entirety, enter into a contract to sell the land, and the husband dies before the contract is consummated. The Appellate Division held the contract did not terminate the tenancy by the entirety and the transfer was not taxable. We agree essentially for the reasons stated in its opinion. A tax is imposed when real property is “transferred by will or by the intestate laws of this State from a resident of this State dying seized or possessed thereof.” N. J. S. A. 54:34r-la. As we pointed out in Newman v. Chase, 70 N. J. 254, 259 n. 3 (1976), upon the death of a tenant by the entirety the survivor becomes sole owner either by right of survivorship or as an incident of the original grant or devise. Under either theory the transfer of the realty upon the husband’s death was not ascribable to a will or intestacy. The principle of equitable conversion was not applicable under these circumstances insofar as the State was concerned.
Affirmed.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes and Justices Sullivan, Pashman, Clifford, Schreiber and Handler and Judge Conford — 7.
For reversal — None.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.