Summary

Morris Pashman Newman v. Chase — Concurrence/dissent (1976)

Chase to make an accounting in this case would contradict the ‘fresh start’ sought by her husband through the bankruptcy proceedings. Mrs. Chase, though not a party to the bankruptcy proceedings, would be directly and unfairly subject to its ‘penalties.’ Moreover, the imposition of this additional burden on the family might result in dispossession of the family, forcing it to become a ‘charge upon the state’ and thereby defeating one of the salient purposes of this tenancy.
Source: Wikisource

Morris Pashman Newman v. Chase — Concurrence/dissent (1976)

I recognize that case law regards the purchaser of a spouse's interest in a tenancy by the entirety as ob-taining a present possessory interest as a tenant in common. Nonetheless, the entitlement of the pur-chaser to an accounting, where there is an ouster by one cotenant, has never been applied to a set of cir-cumstances precisely analogous to that before us.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature