TRY ME!
Joint Tenancy Legal Insights
Summary
Joint tenancy and tenancy by the entirety involve specific rights and restrictions. Joint tenancy includes the right of survivorship, meaning the surviving tenant automatically inherits the property. Tenancy by the entirety, often used by married couples, protects property from unilateral actions by one spouse, such as selling or leasing without consent. Tenants in common can sell their share independently, but partition by sale requires court approval if division is impractical. Legal claims against property depend on the type of ownership and jurisdictional laws. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for property rights and resolving disputes.Full Conversation
G wanted to give Blackacre to his two grandchildren, A and B. On Monday, he gave A a deed to Blackacre which stated “G conveys to A a half-interest in Blackacre.” On Tuesday, he gave a deed to B, which stated “G conveys a half-interest in Blackacre to B, in joint tenancy with A.” A died shortly thereafter, leaving a will giving all of his property to his wife, W. Which of the following is true?
(A)
W takes nothing, because of B's right of survivorship.
(B)
W takes a half-interest in Blackacre as tenant in common with B.
(C)
W takes nothing, because G cannot convey Blackacre in this manner.
(D)
W takes nothing, because G intended only his grandchildren to benefit
The correct answer is:
(A) W takes nothing, because of B's right of survivorship.
Explanation:
- When G conveyed a half-interest in Blackacre to B in joint tenancy with A, it established a joint tenancy between A and B.
- Joint tenancy includes the right of survivorship, meaning that upon the death of one joint tenant, the surviving joint tenant automatically owns the entire property.
- Therefore, A's interest in Blackacre passed directly to B upon A's death, leaving W with no interest in Blackacre.
(A) W takes nothing, because of B's right of survivorship.
Explanation:
- When G conveyed a half-interest in Blackacre to B in joint tenancy with A, it established a joint tenancy between A and B.
- Joint tenancy includes the right of survivorship, meaning that upon the death of one joint tenant, the surviving joint tenant automatically owns the entire property.
- Therefore, A's interest in Blackacre passed directly to B upon A's death, leaving W with no interest in Blackacre.
G wanted to give Blackacre to his two grandchildren, A and B. On Monday, he gave A a deed to Blackacre which stated “G conveys to A a half-interest in Blackacre.” On Tuesday, he gave a deed to B, which stated “G conveys a half-interest in Blackacre to B, in joint tenancy with A.” A died shortly thereafter, leaving a will giving all of his property to his wife, W. Which of the following is true?
(A)
W takes nothing, because of B's right of survivorship.
(B)
W takes a half-interest in Blackacre as tenant in common with B.
(C)
W takes nothing, because G cannot convey Blackacre in this manner.
(D)
W takes nothing, because G intended only his grandchildren to benefit.
The correct answer is:
(A) W takes nothing, because of B's right of survivorship.
Explanation:
- When G conveyed a half-interest in Blackacre to B in joint tenancy with A, it established a joint tenancy between A and B.
- Joint tenancy includes the right of survivorship, meaning that upon the death of one joint tenant, the surviving joint tenant automatically owns the entire property.
- Therefore, A's interest in Blackacre passed directly to B upon A's death, leaving W with no interest in Blackacre.
(A) W takes nothing, because of B's right of survivorship.
Explanation:
- When G conveyed a half-interest in Blackacre to B in joint tenancy with A, it established a joint tenancy between A and B.
- Joint tenancy includes the right of survivorship, meaning that upon the death of one joint tenant, the surviving joint tenant automatically owns the entire property.
- Therefore, A's interest in Blackacre passed directly to B upon A's death, leaving W with no interest in Blackacre.
E, F, and G bought Blackacre, a three-bedroom house, and took title as tenants in common. They bought Blackacre as an investment and planned to rent it out. However, F and G loved the house and decided to move in. E wants F and G to pay him rent for living in a house that is one-third his, after all. F and G flat out refuse to do so and tell him he's free to move in with them if he wants to. Which of the following is true?
(A)
F and G owe E two-thirds of the rental value of the house.
(B)
F and G owe E one-third of the rental value of the house.
(C)
F and G do not owe E rent, but the value may be taken into account in determining liability for carrying charges such as insurance in an accounting action.
(D)
If the three were joint tenants instead of tenants in common, F and G would have to pay E rent.
Case Rating: *
In this situation, the correct answer is:
(C) F and G do not owe E rent, but the value may be taken into account in determining liability for carrying charges such as insurance in an accounting action.
This is because, as tenants in common, each co-tenant has the right to possess and use the entire property, and if one or more co-tenants choose to live there, they do not owe rent to the others. However, expenses related to the property may be shared.
Do you need any further clarification or have another legal question?
In this situation, the correct answer is:
(C) F and G do not owe E rent, but the value may be taken into account in determining liability for carrying charges such as insurance in an accounting action.
This is because, as tenants in common, each co-tenant has the right to possess and use the entire property, and if one or more co-tenants choose to live there, they do not owe rent to the others. However, expenses related to the property may be shared.
Do you need any further clarification or have another legal question?
A and B are married. They bought a rental property together, called Rustacre, taking title as tenants by the entirety. Several years after this purchase, the couple went through a rough patch, mostly due to A's drug use. In order to support her habit, A secretly decided to convey her half of Rustacre to her dealer, D, in exchange for drugs. B died a short time later with a will leaving all of her property to the Salvation Army. Assume the state does not have an elective share statute and is not a community property state. What is the state of the title?
(A)
The Salvation Army and D each own a half-interest in Rustacre.
(B)
A is the sole owner of Rustacre.
(C)
D is the sole owner of Rustacre.
(D)
The Salvation Army and A each own a half-interest in Rustacre.
Case Rating: *
- Tenancy by the entirety means neither spouse can unilaterally convey their interest.
- A's conveyance to D is invalid.
- Upon B's death, A becomes the sole owner due to the right of survivorship.
Correct Answer: (B) A is the sole owner of Rustacre.
- Tenancy by the entirety means neither spouse can unilaterally convey their interest.
- A's conveyance to D is invalid.
- Upon B's death, A becomes the sole owner due to the right of survivorship.
Correct Answer: (B) A is the sole owner of Rustacre.
A and B were married and owned a vacation home called Greenacre as tenants by the entirety. One night, A had too much to drink and got into an accident. She hit a car driven by C, injuring her badly. C sued and obtained a $*,*,* judgment against A. Because A had insufficient insurance to pay this amount, C wants to satisfy the judgment against Greenacre. Which of the following is true in most American jurisdictions that allow tenancy by the entirety?
(A)
C should be able to reach A's half-interest in Greenacre, because tort judgments are generally an exception to the rule against unilateral severance.
(B)
C will not be able to attach Greenacre at all, because property held in tenancy by the entirety is not subject to debts of one spouse only.
(C)
C will not be able to reach Greenacre now but can create a lien on the property, which she can enforce upon sale of the property.
(D)
C should be able to reach the entirety of Greenacre, because A was entitled to possession of the whole.
Case Rating: *
In most American jurisdictions that allow tenancy by the entirety, property held in this manner is generally protected from the debts of one spouse. Therefore, the correct answer is likely:
(B) C will not be able to attach Greenacre at all, because property held in tenancy by the entirety is not subject to debts of one spouse only.
Would you like more information on this topic or have any other questions?
In most American jurisdictions that allow tenancy by the entirety, property held in this manner is generally protected from the debts of one spouse. Therefore, the correct answer is likely:
(B) C will not be able to attach Greenacre at all, because property held in tenancy by the entirety is not subject to debts of one spouse only.
Would you like more information on this topic or have any other questions?
A, B, and C inherited Blackacre, a *-acre farm, in equal shares as tenants in common. Shortly thereafter, A sold his one-third interest to Malls, Inc., which wants the entire parcel so it can build a new shopping mall. B does not want the land to be partitioned, particularly not by sale, because she loves the land. Malls, Inc. petitions the court for partition by sale, alleging that dividing the land into three pieces will make it less valuable and that it would be difficult to make the shares come out even. Which of the following is true in most jurisdictions?
(A)
B can set aside the sale of A's share to Malls, Inc. because A did not have her permission.
(B)
Malls, Inc. may seek partition only
(C)
A court will order a sale unless B can prove that partition in kind.
(D)
Malls, Inc. can get partition by sale if it can show that partition in kind is impracticable or will result in great prejudice to the parties.
Case Rating: *
In most jurisdictions, the correct answer is:
(D) Malls, Inc. can get partition by sale if it can show that partition in kind is impracticable or will result in great prejudice to the parties.
Would you like more information on this topic or have another legal question?
In most jurisdictions, the correct answer is:
(D) Malls, Inc. can get partition by sale if it can show that partition in kind is impracticable or will result in great prejudice to the parties.
Would you like more information on this topic or have another legal question?
Brother and sister, B and S, bought Blackacre in *, taking title as joint tenants. B fell in love with L and, in *, he secretly deeded his interest in Blackacre to her “in joint tenancy with my sister, S.” L accepted the deed with exclamations of her love for B. S died in *, leaving all her property to her daughter D by will. What is the state of the title to Blackacre after S's death?
(A)
D and L own Blackacre as joint tenants.
(B)
L is the sole owner of Blackacre.
(C)
B is the sole owner of Blackacre.
(D)
L and D own Blackacre as tenants in common.
Case Rating: *
After S's death, the state of the title to Blackacre is:
(D) L and D own Blackacre as tenants in common.
- When B deeded his interest to L, it severed the joint tenancy between B and S, creating a tenancy in common between L and S.
- Upon S's death, her share passed to her daughter, D, by will.
- Therefore, L and D now own Blackacre as tenants in common.
After S's death, the state of the title to Blackacre is:
(D) L and D own Blackacre as tenants in common.
- When B deeded his interest to L, it severed the joint tenancy between B and S, creating a tenancy in common between L and S.
- Upon S's death, her share passed to her daughter, D, by will.
- Therefore, L and D now own Blackacre as tenants in common.
Lani and Darius co-own an oil field in East Arcadia as tenants by the entirety. Last year, without telling Darius, Lani agreed to lease a half-acre of the oil field to LexOil, a multi-national petroleum company. Darius became angry when he learned of the agreement because Lani entered the lease without his input. Can Darius disavow the lease and take steps to evict LexOil?
(A)
Yes, because co-tenants by the entirety must agree to any lease of the property.
(B)
Yes, because a joint tenant cannot unilaterally sever the tenancy.
(C)
No, because a tenant by the entireties can unilaterally sever the tenancy.
(D)
No, because a tenant by the entireties can unilaterally enter into a lease agreement.
Case Rating: *
Darius has a strong case for challenging the lease agreement. In New York, tenants by the entirety cannot unilaterally transfer or lease property without the consent of the other tenant.
- Tenants by the entirety must agree to any lease of the property.
- Lani's unilateral lease agreement is likely invalid.
Would you like more information on the steps Darius can take to disavow the lease and evict LexOil?
Darius has a strong case for challenging the lease agreement. In New York, tenants by the entirety cannot unilaterally transfer or lease property without the consent of the other tenant.
- Tenants by the entirety must agree to any lease of the property.
- Lani's unilateral lease agreement is likely invalid.
Would you like more information on the steps Darius can take to disavow the lease and evict LexOil?
Henry and Willa, an engaged couple in Arcadia, purchased their first home together on the eve of their wedding, taking title as joint tenants. At their wedding reception, the couple caused a major traffic accident, causing injury to other motorists. The next day, the couple sold the property to a friend for a $*, who then sold it back to them, with Henry and Willa taking title as tenants by the entireties. Those motorists injured on the couple’s wedding night have filed a lawsuit, hoping to attach the couple’s home to pay damages.
Are the injured motorists likely to prevail?
(A)
Yes, because a joint tenancy can be attached for debt, where all co-tenants are responsible for the debt.
(B)
Yes, because the transfer to the friend was lawful.
(C)
No, because a tenancy by the entirety cannot be attached for debt.
(D)
No, because a tenancy by the entirety can be attached for debt.
Case Rating: *
The injured motorists are likely to prevail. The correct answer is:
(B) Yes, because the transfer to the friend was lawful.
The transfer to the friend and back to the couple does not necessarily shield the property from attachment, as the court may see through the transaction as a way to avoid liability.
Would you like more information on this topic or have another legal question?
The injured motorists are likely to prevail. The correct answer is:
(B) Yes, because the transfer to the friend was lawful.
The transfer to the friend and back to the couple does not necessarily shield the property from attachment, as the court may see through the transaction as a way to avoid liability.
Would you like more information on this topic or have another legal question?
The holder of a contingent remainder can (successfully) petition a court to partition an estate presently held by a life tenant.
(A)
True, because any interest holder can succeed on a petition for partition.
(B)
True, because future interest holders have a right to protect their interests.
(C)
False, because only present possessory interest holders may demand a partition.
(D)
False, because the holder of a contingent remainder must first petition for an accounting.
Case Rating: *
The correct answer is:
(C) False, because only present possessory interest holders may demand a partition.
In general, only those who hold a present possessory interest in the property can demand a partition. Holders of future interests, such as contingent remaindermen, typically do not have the standing to request a partition.
Is there another legal question you need assistance with?
The correct answer is:
(C) False, because only present possessory interest holders may demand a partition.
In general, only those who hold a present possessory interest in the property can demand a partition. Holders of future interests, such as contingent remaindermen, typically do not have the standing to request a partition.
Is there another legal question you need assistance with?
After their wedding in *, Juan Carlos and Jamie purchased a home, taking title as tenants by the entirety. Jamie now thinks the house no longer suits the family’s needs, and she wants to move. Juan Carlos loves the house and has no interest in moving. Jamie sought advice from a friend, who suggested that Jamie pursue an action for partition in order to force the sale of the home.
Will Jamie succeed?
(A)
Yes, because any interest holder can succeed on a petition for partition.
(B)
Yes, because Juan Carlos refuses to sell.
(C)
No, because a tenancy by the entirety cannot be severed.
(D)
No, because a tenancy by the entirety can be severed.
Case Rating: *
(C) No, because a tenancy by the entirety cannot be severed.
In New York, tenancy by the entirety cannot be unilaterally severed by one spouse. Jamie would not succeed in an action for partition to force the sale of the home. The consent of both parties is required to sell or partition property held as tenants by the entirety.
(C) No, because a tenancy by the entirety cannot be severed.
In New York, tenancy by the entirety cannot be unilaterally severed by one spouse. Jamie would not succeed in an action for partition to force the sale of the home. The consent of both parties is required to sell or partition property held as tenants by the entirety.
Start a new chat