Michigan has the somewhat dubious distinction of being the
last state in the Union to have laws in effect that provide for the association
of Dower Rights to real property. Most other states repealed any dower rights
laws on their books years ago.
So what are Dower
Rights?
A very good explanation of dower and dower rights comes from a paper published
by James M. Leby titled LAST ONE STANDING: MICHIGAN’S DOWER LAW . Brief excerpts from
that paper below may help explain the concept:
The dower right was
originally a common law creation. During feudal times, the common practice was
that property passed from the husband to the eldest son, and real estate was
the primary source of wealth. The
concept of a Dower provided a method of supporting a man’s wife and children
after his death. The Dower gave the widow a life interest (estate) in one third
of the real property owned by her husband during the marriage, from which she
could support herself. This right attached to more than just the land held by
the husband at his death. The wife retained dower rights even in property that
the husband disposed of, unless she signed off on the transfer of the property
as well.
Statutory forms of
dower in Michigan stretch as far back as an ordinance from 1787. The 1787
ordinance actually provided for the widow to receive a life estate in one third
of her spouse’s personal property as well as the traditional life estate in a
third of his real property. Later statutes once again removed the right to take
personal property. Early forms of dower
were justified partly by the fact that women could not own their own property
while they were married, and thus could not build up any independent
resources. The state legislature gave
women the right to own their own property in the mid-1800s; however, the
legislature continued to retain dower as a means of supporting widows.
Ed. – Effectively this meant that a woman in Michigan could
buy and sell real estate without her husband’s approval or sign-off; however, a
man who married needs the approval and sign-off of his wife to dispose of any
real estate that he owns, even if he owned it prior to the marriage, because
her dower rights gave her an interest in it.
New laws abolish the
Dower –
New laws that the lame duck 2016 Michigan Legislature passed
and sent to the Governor for signature will abolish this last vestige of the
common law practice of dowers in Michigan. From the Legislative News published
on the web site www.mirealtors.com.
Dower Repeal (Senate Bills 558, 560 (Jones - R-Grand Ledge)
& HB 5520 (Kesto, R-Commerce Township)
The three-bill package eliminates Dower and references to
Dower Rights in Michigan. After the United States Supreme Court legalized
same-sex marriage, Michigan's Dower Rights statute came under scrutiny by
outside groups and the legislature. Specifically, the constitutionality of all
gender-based laws came into question. Since Michigan's Dower is limited to the
"wife" and the requirements of Dower created transactional
uncertainty and clouds on title, the preferred approach by the legislature and
stakeholder groups like Michigan Realtors® was to pursue elimination of Michigan's
arguably unconstitutional approach to Dower.
For those unfamiliar with Dower, upon the death of her
husband, a wife is entitled to the use – during her lifetime – of 1/3 of all
lands owned by her husband during the marriage.
It is important to note that Dower is an expectancy only, meaning that
her rights only vest if a wife survives her husband. As a practical matter, this right is rarely,
if ever, exercised upon the death of a husband. Instead, a widow in Michigan
has the alternative of electing a share of all of the property of her husband
at the time of his death. It is rarely
the case that an interest in the income from one-third of real property he had
owned would exceed that.
Ed. - So, what is Michigan left with after the old dower
rights are repealed? Just like politicians at the national level, the
Republican-led State Legislature in Michigan has repealed an existing law
without providing any replacement. It may be argued that none is required due to
protections provided to widows and women in general under other, more modern
laws governing estates and probate and divorce and such, but only time will
tell on that. The same legislature has been reluctant to deal with issues
concerning non-traditional marriages, so it remains to be seen whether any new
laws to protect the interests of partners in same-sex marriages will be needed
or ever enacted, even if they are needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment