There is no single answer. The most common reasons were financial 
protection for a woman and her children from a husband's debts or to 
guarantee that property coming from the woman's family remained hers. 
You cannot make a determination without knowing what the law was in 
regard to ownership, inheritance, and liability for debt. These vary 
from time period to time period and from state to state. Under English 
common law married women had very limited property rights. As long as 
she was married her husband controlled any real property she owned at 
marriage. At her death it went to her children subject to her surviving 
husband's curtesy right. Laws allowing a married woman to own  real 
property in her own right varied in application. The first such 
enactment was in the state of Mississippi in 1839  There is a brief 
article on Wikipedia, which I cannot guarantee is accurate but will 
provide general information. The book John Metz mentioned, /Women and 
the Law of Property"/ is much more comprehensive; HOWEVER, it is the law 
in the state where the property was and the person lived during the time 
period in question that is most important.

Barbara Vines Little, CG, FNGS, FUGA, FVGS
PO Box 1273
Orange, VA 22960

540-832-3473
[log in to unmask]

CG, Certified Genealogist, is a service mark of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used
under license by board-certified genealogists after periodic evaluation; the board name is
registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office.

On 3/26/2020 11:44 AM, Leland Ness wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have several questions that have arisen in the last several decades 
> of my local history quest, but I figure I will start with the 
> easiest.  It is probably one that many subscribers will know off the 
> top of their heads.
>
> In researching land titles at the local courthouses for the period 
> 1890-1920 I often find that ownership is listed solely in the name of 
> the wife of a married couple.
>
> I guess this could be interpreted as evidence of an early "woke" and 
> progressive Virginia, but I suspect the reason is more prosaic.  Real 
> estate taxes were levied regardless of who technically owned the 
> property, but perhaps there were benefits in the event of bankruptcy?  
> Or perhaps intestate death?  Did they not have joint tenancy with 
> rights of survivorship?
>
> Any thoughts on why a married couple would put their house in the name 
> of the wife only in that period?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Leland Ness
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the 
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> This list is made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of 
> Museum and Library Services (IMLS).
>

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

This list is made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).