Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 12 - Commentary on Sawada v. Endo

  • from Part VI - Tenancy in Common, Joint Tenancy, and Tenancy by the Entirety
  • Edited by Eloisa C. Rodriguez-Dod, Elena Maria Marty-Nelson
  • Book:
    Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions
    Published online:
    21 October 2021
    Print publication:
    28 October 2021, pp 253-282

  • Summary

    Sawada v. Endo1 has become a foundational case for feminist jurisprudence despite facts that, at first blush, appear to have nothing to do with matters of women’s equality. An automobile-on-pedestrian personal injury case in Hawaii, the dispute veered into the terrain of gender and marital property law only when the tortfeasor and his wife sought to shield their sole asset – the family home co-owned in tenancy by the entirety – from the claims of the tort victims, conveying it to their sons prior to judgment. That purported transfer provides the occasion for considering the modern contours of the estate owned by the couple. This dispute over whether the conveyance was made to defraud the tort victim creditors still does not directly implicate the interests of the actual woman who co-owned the estate in question. She had no role in the accident and then died prior to the resolution of the case. The specific issue as presented on appeal is entirely about the nature of the husband’s interest.