An Inheritance in Legal Limbo
Robert James died in 1986. Yet it wasn’t until 1999 — a full 13 years later — that his daughter, Letitia James, filed a petition in Queens Surrogate’s Court to administer the estate. The only significant asset: a modest townhome at 114-04 Inwood Street in Jamaica, Queens.
James asserted under oath that she and her father held the property as “tenants in common,” rather than as “joint tenants,” a legal status that would legally obligate the probate court to transfer her father’s share of the house to her.
“The property would not pass to the heirs of the decedent by operation of law,” James wrote in her affirmation, “because the decedent held the property with the undersigned as tenants in common with no right of survivorship.”
However, James’s account is controverted by the mortgage Letitia and her father obtained as “husband and wife” in May 1983.
Why does that matter?
Because the 1983 mortgage on the property, which listed Letitia and her father as “husband and wife,” strongly suggests a joint tenancy — undermining James’ later claims in probate court.
Despite this, James ultimately sold the home in 2000 with official records still showing ownership of the property as “husband and wife” between her and her deceased father, Robert James.
This prompts the question of whether James gained tax or other financial benefits by selling the property as “husband and wife,” despite inheriting her father’s share—potentially to avoid capital gains taxes on the sale proceeds.
