This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
French translation: propriété matrimoniale en indivision [avec attribution au dernier vivant] + paren
06:53 Jun 23, 2019
English to French translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general)
English term or phrase:tenants by the entireties
After such marriage as before, any person may deal with either Laura or Paul separately with reference to her or his separate property, real or personal, whether title of record thereto be held in separate names, joint tenancy with right of survivorship between them, as tenants by the entireties, as tenants in common, or otherwise, whether owned at the time of such marriage or thereafter acquired, in precisely the same manner and to the same extent as though each were a single person and such marriage had not taken place, and any such person so dealing with either of them and taking from her or him any deed, conveyance, transfer or mortgage of her or his separate property, or any interest therein.
Explanation: This requires an explanatory translation because this exact way of holding title in property doesn't exist in France, Quebec, etc. For that matter, it doesn't even exist in all US states.
The different ways of holding property in the US address different issues: How many people can be on title; what share of the property do they own; to whom does their share go when they die; and can their creditors use the property as collateral or seize it in payment of a judgment?
T by E: only 2 can be on title, and they must be married; they each own 100% (their shares are entire and merged); if one dies, ownership goes to the other; and no, creditors of one cannot get to the property at all. Only creditors of BOTH owners (e.g. if both owners co-sign on a loan) can get it.
It's honestly too much to explain in a translation, so I would just approximately translate it as above [brackets to show what you could leave off if you don't want to get into that much detail], then put a parenthetical saying ("Tenancy by the Entireties"). The client, their lawyer, or any other ultimate reader can then look up the English term if they want more information.
As a side note, this prenup seems odd to me. I don't think you can use a private contract to defeat the meaning of a given type of title. If property is held in T by E, then it's held in T by E, no matter what the spouses may have agreed contractually. If they want it to be treated differently then they probably have to hold it under a different type of title. Their prenup can affect property division if they divorce, but it has nothing to do with third-party creditors.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 day 6 hrs (2019-06-24 13:07:32 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
PS because of the way the original English is phrased, you can translate it to a type of property ownership rather than a type of owner. In other words you can say "propriété" rather than "propriétaires." The original says:
"...whether title of record thereto be held in separate names, joint tenancy with right of survivorship between them, as tenants by the entireties, as tenants in common..."
The two terms that use "tenants" are identical in meaning if rephrased to "tenancy" (that is, "held in... a tenancy by the entireties, a tenancy in common..."). And using "propriété" rather than "propriétaires" here is moins lourd in French.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 day 11 hrs (2019-06-24 18:18:42 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
@ Germaine, the "traduction attestée" is 100% wrong. Termium proposes "locataire unitaire," which is completely false and clearly based on a misunderstanding of the English term. "Tenant" only means "locataire" in the context of a lease. It means something totally different here.
Since Termium is utterly wrong on that, why would you rely on Termium's other proposed possible translation ("tenant unitaire"), especially when Sylvie is translating this for a French audience (not the Canadian audience of Termium) and she has already said that "tenant" is not used in France?
that you feel qualified to declare that Termium... has clearly misunderstood the term
I mean, they have. They propose "locataire" as a translation of "tenant" when what they're translating is a term that means a type of property ownership. If someone said that "renters in common" and "renters by the entireties" were synonyms of "tenants in common" and "tenants by the entireties," wouldn't you feel qualified to say that they're wrong? I hope so.
I don't mind "unitaire," but we should include "matrimoniale" because T by E is inherently, always, automatically matrimonial: the two owners must be married to each other at the time they take title, in order to own as T by E. Unitaire itself is probably better than indivision, for the ownership share.
But when Termium proposes either "locataire" (100% utterly wrong) or "tenant" (means nothing in France), I don't think we should mindlessly accept that just because it's Termium.
And no, I'm not going to reject Black's Law Dictionary as a source just because there's a bad link on their site. That's not at all the same thing as having a flatly incorrect translation in a translation dictionary.
Notez: je suis d’accord sur une traduction par « en propriété »; c’est d’ailleurs ce que je ferais moi-même (d’autant qu’on a déjà le "title" juste avant) : Après le mariage comme avant, toute personne peut [traiter] [faire affaire] individuellement avec Laura ou avec Paul en ce qui a trait à leurs biens propres, meubles ou immeubles, que le titre constaté par acte d’archives desdits biens soit détenu en leur nom propre, en propriété conjointe avec droit de survie, en [tenance][propriété] unitaire, en [tenance][propriété] commune ou autrement…
Mon point est le suivant: What do you mean by "propriété matrimoniale en indivision" ? A matrimonial individed condo?
Nothing in "propriété matrimoniale indivise" indicates that both spouses own a 100% right in the property - at least, from my native point of view. Si je regarde "indivision", on tombe plutôt dans les "tenants in common", non?
I don’t know which is the most surprising to me : that you feel qualified to declare that Termium –a work of the translators and terminologists of the Translation Bureau – and especially the PAJLO - The National Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice – as a source “utterly wrong that has clearly misunderstood the term” or that the fact that a term “isn’t used in France” is a “solid reason” (!) not to use the Termium/PAJLO translation – or any other source in fact, offering the same solution. À ce compte-là, ne devrait-on pas interpréter/paraphraser tous et chacun des termes de common law qui n’ont pas leur pendant dans le système civiliste? Ou simplement s’abtenir de traduire?
“Termium proposes two very similar options… Nobody who has even the most basic understanding of that term could possibly propose "locataire". I totally agree! I would never choose this entry: it doesn’t apply to the context! So, why do you even discuss it? Will you trash the Black’s Law for these: https://thelawdictionary.org/tenant/
il m’apparaît plus prudent d’utliiser la terminologie reconnue
I would normally agree with you, but this particular terminology is (1) "reconnue" by a source that has clearly misunderstood the term, and (2) is not "reconnue" at all in France.
Termium is Canadian. Sylvie is translating for a French audience, AND she has said that the term used in Termium ("tenant") isn't used in France. That alone is a solid reason not to use the Termium translation.
But the biggest reason not to use it is that Termium proposes two very similar options, and one of them shows, inarguably, that whoever created this Termium entry did not understand the US legal term "tenants by the entireties." Nobody who has even the most basic understanding of that term could possibly propose "locataire" as a translation for "tenant" by the entireties.
We are bilingual and can think for ourselves. Why should we adopt a translation proposed by a source that clearly doesn't understand the original term?
Sometimes to do justice to the text and to the purpose of the translation, you have to do an explanatory translation. To me this seems to be one of those times
Il s’agit, comme l’a souligné Sylvie dans une autre question, d’un "contrat prénuptial de droit américain Nebraska". Même traduit en français, il ne sera pas interprété selon le droit français (à moins d’une clause à cet effet).
Les termes "joint tenancy", "tenants in their entireties", etc. trouvent leur sens dans la common law. Pour les traduire, il m’apparaît plus prudent d’utliiser la terminologie reconnue, qui renverra exactement à ce dont on parle, que de forger une interprétation plus ou moins juste dont la retraduction vers l’anglais risque d’escamoter complètement la notion originale.
"Tenant unitaire" est un terme normalisé. Si le client cherche cette expression "qui n’a pas de sens en France", il risque de trouver une réponse. Dans le cas contraire, c’est au rédacteur de répondre aux questions éventuelles de ses clients, pas au traducteur. Maintenant, s’il ne s’agit pas de traduction, mais plutôt de localisation/adaptation, de droit comparé ou de vulgarisation, évidemment, on ne parle pas de la même chose.
That reference still isn't accurate in terms of what tenancy/tenants by the entireties ("T by E") means today. This is a situation where you have to do an explanatory translation, because this exact way of holding title in property doesn't exist in France (or Quebec, etc.).
The different ways of holding property in the US address different issues: How many people can be on title; what share of the property do they own; to whom does their share go when they die; and can their creditors use the property as collateral or seize it in payment of a judgment?
T by E: only 2, and they must be married; they each own 100% (their shares are entire and merged); if one dies, ownership goes to the other; and no, creditors of one cannot get to the property at all. Only creditors of BOTH tenants (e.g. if both tenants are on a loan) can get it.
It's honestly too much to explain in a translation, so I would just approximately translate it ("propriété matrimoniale en indivision avec attribution au dernier vivant," maybe), then put a parenthetical saying ("Tenancy by the Entireties"). The client or ultimate reader can then google the English term if they want more information.
@Ph-B Oui j'ai vu ces références mais cela n'a pas de sens en France .. le terme "tenant" n'est pas utilisé en France ... je ne trouve pas d'équivalents français ...
Termium, tout comme juriterm.ca d’ailleurs, parlent en fait de "tenants unitaires" - le terme "moderne" le plus approchant serait "propriétaires/titulaires unitaires" et reprend exactement la définition que vous apportez:
(contexte) At common law, husband and wife were regarded as one person, the legal existence of the wife during marriage being regarded as incorporated or merged into that of the husband. One result was that, if land were conveyed or devised to or devolved upon husband and wife during coverture in such manner that, if not married, they would have taken it as joint tenants, they took it as tenants by the entireties ((...)) Anger and Honsberger Law of Real Property, 2e éd., 1985, p. 828.
INFORMATIONS SUR LES SOLUTIONS ÉQUIVALENT 1: tenant unitaire CONSTAT 1: tenant unitaire SOURCE 1: PAJLO, Dictionnaire canadien de la common law : Droit des biens et droit successoral, Ottawa, Ass. Bar. can. et Éditions Yvon Blais, 1997, p. 600, sens 1.
The term "tenants by the entireties" has NOTHING to do with renters ("locataires," as Termium says).
A tenancy by the entireties is a way of owning property (just as "joint tenants" and "tenants in common" are ways of owning property -- and NONE of them have anything to do with renters/locataires).
Joint tenants: any number of people can own the property. They each own an equal share (two tenants each own 50%, 3 tenants each own 1/3, etc.). If one joint tenant dies, their share automatically goes to the surviving joint tenants (so if there are 3 joint tenants and one dies, the surviving 2 each end up with 50% ownership).
Tenants in common: any number of people can own it; they can have different shares (one with 75% and the other with 25%, whatever). If one tenant dies, their share stays their property -- it goes into their estate, and to their heirs.
Tenancy by the entireties: only two people and they have to be married to each other. They're legally considered to BOTH own 100%.
propriété matrimoniale en indivision [avec attribution au dernier vivant] + paren
Explanation: This requires an explanatory translation because this exact way of holding title in property doesn't exist in France, Quebec, etc. For that matter, it doesn't even exist in all US states.
The different ways of holding property in the US address different issues: How many people can be on title; what share of the property do they own; to whom does their share go when they die; and can their creditors use the property as collateral or seize it in payment of a judgment?
T by E: only 2 can be on title, and they must be married; they each own 100% (their shares are entire and merged); if one dies, ownership goes to the other; and no, creditors of one cannot get to the property at all. Only creditors of BOTH owners (e.g. if both owners co-sign on a loan) can get it.
It's honestly too much to explain in a translation, so I would just approximately translate it as above [brackets to show what you could leave off if you don't want to get into that much detail], then put a parenthetical saying ("Tenancy by the Entireties"). The client, their lawyer, or any other ultimate reader can then look up the English term if they want more information.
As a side note, this prenup seems odd to me. I don't think you can use a private contract to defeat the meaning of a given type of title. If property is held in T by E, then it's held in T by E, no matter what the spouses may have agreed contractually. If they want it to be treated differently then they probably have to hold it under a different type of title. Their prenup can affect property division if they divorce, but it has nothing to do with third-party creditors.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 day 6 hrs (2019-06-24 13:07:32 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
PS because of the way the original English is phrased, you can translate it to a type of property ownership rather than a type of owner. In other words you can say "propriété" rather than "propriétaires." The original says:
"...whether title of record thereto be held in separate names, joint tenancy with right of survivorship between them, as tenants by the entireties, as tenants in common..."
The two terms that use "tenants" are identical in meaning if rephrased to "tenancy" (that is, "held in... a tenancy by the entireties, a tenancy in common..."). And using "propriété" rather than "propriétaires" here is moins lourd in French.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 day 11 hrs (2019-06-24 18:18:42 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
@ Germaine, the "traduction attestée" is 100% wrong. Termium proposes "locataire unitaire," which is completely false and clearly based on a misunderstanding of the English term. "Tenant" only means "locataire" in the context of a lease. It means something totally different here.
Since Termium is utterly wrong on that, why would you rely on Termium's other proposed possible translation ("tenant unitaire"), especially when Sylvie is translating this for a French audience (not the Canadian audience of Termium) and she has already said that "tenant" is not used in France?
Eliza Hall United States Local time: 08:59 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 80
