- Two partners in a business purchased a warehouse, taking title by a deed that conveyed the property to them 'as tenants in common, with a right of survivorship.' One partner later died, and his will left all of his property to his daughter. The surviving partner claimed sole ownership of the warehouse based on the deed's language. The daughter filed suit, claiming a one-half interest.
Answer: The surviving partner is the sole owner because the explicit mention of a 'right of survivorship' created a joint tenancy.
The correct answer is A. This question presents a deed with conflicting language: 'tenants in common' (which implies no survivorship) and 'with a right of survivorship' (the hallmark of a joint tenancy). When a deed is ambiguous, courts strive to give effect to the grantor's intent as expressed in the instrument. The explicit grant of a 'right of survivorship' is a very strong indicator of intent to create a joint tenancy. Most courts will find that this specific language controls over the more general 'tenants in common' phrase and will construe the deed as creating a joint tenancy. Therefore, upon the death of one partner, the surviving partner would become the sole owner. B and D are incorrect because courts will try to harmonize the language rather than voiding a key term. C describes a more complex and less common estate, whereas reinterpreting the grant as a joint tenancy is the most straightforward way to honor the survivorship language.
- You are representing a client who wishes to create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship in her home with her adult son. Your client currently owns the home in her name alone. The jurisdiction follows the common law requirement of the four unities (time, title, interest, and possession) for creating a joint tenancy.
Answer: Advise the client to first convey the home to a third-party intermediary, who will then convey it back to the client and her son as joint tenants.
The correct answer is B. At common law, the creation of a joint tenancy requires the four unities: time (interests vest at the same time), title (interests acquired in the same instrument), interest (same type and duration), and possession (equal right to possess). When a property owner tries to create a joint tenancy with another person by a direct conveyance from herself to herself and the other person (as in option A), the unities of time and title are broken because the grantor already holds title. The traditional common law solution is to use a 'straw person' or third-party intermediary. The owner conveys the property to the straw person, who then immediately conveys it back to the original owner and the new co-owner as joint tenants. This method satisfies all four unities. Many states have statutorily abolished the need for a straw person, but the question specifies a common law jurisdiction. A is the modern approach but fails under the common law. C also fails for lack of the unities of time and title. D is incorrect legal advice.
- A woman owned a house which she conveyed through a valid deed 'to my husband and myself, as tenants by the entirety.' The jurisdiction recognizes tenancy by the entirety. Several years later, the husband unilaterally conveyed his interest in the house to his son by a quitclaim deed. The husband then died. The wife, upon learning of the deed to the son, brought a quiet title action against the son.
Answer: The wife is the sole owner because the husband's attempted conveyance to his son was void.
The correct answer is A. A distinguishing feature of a tenancy by the entirety is that neither spouse can unilaterally convey their interest to a third party. Such an attempted conveyance is a nullity and is void from its inception; it does not sever the tenancy. Therefore, the husband's deed to his son was ineffective and conveyed nothing. The tenancy by the entirety remained intact. When the husband died, the wife became the sole owner of the property through her right of survivorship. C is also true, but A is the more precise reason; the deed was void, not merely invalid or subordinate. B is incorrect because the conveyance was ineffective to sever the tenancy. D is incorrect because the deed was void.
- Two business partners held title to a parcel of land as joint tenants with right of survivorship. One partner, who was in financial trouble, had a judgment entered against him by a creditor. The creditor properly recorded the judgment, creating a lien on the partner's interest in the land. Before the creditor could foreclose on the lien and force a sale, the debtor partner died. The surviving partner now claims to own the entire parcel free of the creditor's lien.
Answer: The surviving partner owns the entire parcel free of the creditor's lien.
The correct answer is B. The mere imposition of a judgment lien on one joint tenant's interest does not, in most states, sever the joint tenancy. Severance occurs only when the property is actually sold at a foreclosure sale. If the debtor joint tenant dies before the foreclosure sale, the right of survivorship operates immediately. The deceased tenant's interest is extinguished, and the surviving joint tenant takes the entire property. Because the deceased tenant's interest is gone, the lien that attached to that interest is also extinguished. Therefore, the surviving partner owns the property free and clear of the creditor's lien. A is incorrect because the lien does not survive the death of the debtor joint tenant. C and D are incorrect because the joint tenancy was never severed.
- A and B own as joint tenants. A conveys her interest to C, then dies. How do B and C hold?
Answer: B and C are tenants in common.
A's conveyance to C severs the joint tenancy, destroying the right of survivorship before A dies. B and C hold separate shares with no survivorship, so they are tenants in common. The tempting mistake is thinking A's death lets B take by survivorship, but A no longer owned any interest to pass.
- An unmarried couple purchased a vacation home. The deed conveyed the property to them 'as husband and wife, as tenants by the entirety.' The jurisdiction in which the property is located recognizes tenancy by the entirety. A year later, the couple broke up. The woman moved out and now wants to force a sale of the property through a partition action. The man objects to the sale.
Answer: Partition will be granted because the failed attempt to create a tenancy by the entirety resulted in a tenancy in common.
The correct answer is B. A tenancy by the entirety can only be created between a married couple. Because the couple was not married when they acquired the property, the conveyance 'as tenants by the entirety' failed to create that estate. When an attempt to create a tenancy by the entirety fails because the grantees are not married, courts must determine what type of co-tenancy was created. The default is a tenancy in common, although some courts may find a joint tenancy if survivorship language was also used. Here, without more, the most likely result is a tenancy in common. Tenants in common have an absolute right to partition the property. A is incorrect because a valid tenancy by the entirety was never created. C is a possible outcome in some states, but tenancy in common is the more common default; either way, a right of partition would exist. D is incorrect because partition is a legal right that does not depend on reformation of the deed.
- Two friends, a man and a woman, purchased a house together, taking title through a deed that conveyed the property to them 'as joint tenants with right of survivorship.' A few years later, they got married to each other. After the marriage, the man incurred a significant, unsecured personal debt. The man's creditor obtained a judgment against him and sought to attach and sell his interest in the house. The jurisdiction recognizes tenancy by the entirety.
Answer: The creditor can attach and sell the man's interest, severing the co-tenancy and making the creditor a tenant in common with the woman.
The correct answer is A. The key issue is whether the subsequent marriage of joint tenants automatically converts their ownership into a tenancy by the entirety. It does not. A tenancy by the entirety requires the four unities (time, title, interest, possession) plus the unity of marriage at the time the property is acquired. Since the man and woman were not married when they took title, they became joint tenants. Their subsequent marriage did not automatically change the form of ownership. As a joint tenant, the man's interest is subject to the claims of his creditors. A creditor can attach his interest and force a partition sale, which would sever the joint tenancy. B is incorrect because the marriage does not automatically convert the tenancy. C is incorrect because a creditor of a joint tenant can typically force a sale. D is incorrect because the classification of property as 'separate' or 'marital' for divorce purposes does not shield it from creditors during the marriage.
- Married H and W own as tenants by the entirety. H alone deeds his interest to X. X gets?
Answer: Nothing; H cannot sever alone.
Because tenancy by entirety belongs to the marital unit, neither spouse acting alone can convey or sever it. H's deed without W joining is ineffective, so X receives nothing. The tempting wrong view is that H's transfer makes X and W tenants in common; that would be true only for a joint tenancy, which one owner can sever, not an entirety.
- A and B are joint tenants with survivorship. A's will leaves her interest to C. A dies. Who owns?
Answer: B owns all by survivorship.
A joint tenant's interest ends at death; the right of survivorship passes the whole estate instantly to the surviving joint tenant, not through probate or the will. So A's devise to C is ineffective and B takes all. The tempting mistake is thinking A's will can devise her half, but survivorship defeats a will.
- A father conveyed his family home via a deed that read: 'I grant this home to my Son and Daughter as joint tenants and not as tenants in common.' The son, who lived in the home, paid the annual property taxes for five consecutive years without any contribution from his sister, who lived abroad. The son now brings an action for contribution against his sister, seeking reimbursement for one-half of the taxes paid.
Answer: The son will fail because, as the sole occupying co-tenant, the rental value of his occupancy is presumed to offset his right to contribution for taxes.
This question tests your understanding of the rights and obligations between joint tenants, particularly regarding contribution for expenses when one co-tenant has exclusive possession.
When joint tenants share ownership but only one occupies the property, courts apply a balancing principle: the occupying co-tenant receives a benefit (free housing) that typically offsets their right to seek contribution for necessary expenses like taxes. Since the son lived in the home for five years without paying rent to his sister, he received substantial value from his exclusive occupancy. This benefit is presumed to equal or exceed the taxes he paid, eliminating his right to contribution. Answer D correctly identifies this offsetting principle.
Answer A states the general rule that co-tenants can seek contribution for expenses, but it ignores the crucial fact that the son had exclusive possession, which changes the analysis entirely.
Answer B incorrectly places the entire tax burden on the possessing co-tenant. While possession affects contribution rights, it doesn't eliminate the non-possessing co-tenant's underlying responsibility for their share of necessary expenses.
Answer C suggests the sister's financial capacity matters, but contribution rights between co-tenants don't depend on one party's ability to pay. The issue here is whether contribution is owed at all, not whether it can be collected.
Study tip: In co-tenancy problems, always check whether one tenant has exclusive possession. This fact pattern often triggers the "offset rule" where the value of free occupancy balances against contribution claims for necessary expenses.
- A parcel of land was owned by a woman and her brother as tenants in common. The woman died, and her valid will devised her one-half interest in the parcel to her daughter for life, with the remainder to a local charity. The daughter and the brother could not agree on the management of the property. The daughter now seeks to compel a partition of the property.
Answer: The daughter may compel partition because as a life tenant, she has a sufficient possessory interest in the property.
The correct answer is A. Any co-tenant who has a present possessory interest in the property has the right to compel partition. This includes tenants in common and joint tenants, regardless of whether their interest is a fee simple or a life estate. The daughter, as a life tenant in a one-half interest, has a present right to possession and thus has standing to bring a partition action against the brother, who is her co-tenant. B is incorrect because a fee simple is not required. C is incorrect because the consent of the remainderman is not needed for a life tenant to seek partition. D is incorrect because while partition in kind is favored, a court can order a partition by sale if physical division is not practical or is not in the best interests of the parties; there is no absolute bar on a life tenant seeking partition by sale.
- A husband and wife owned a home as tenants by the entirety. They divorced. The final divorce decree was silent as to the ownership of the home. Six months after the divorce, the now ex-husband died, leaving a will that devised all his property to his brother. The ex-wife claims she is now the sole owner of the home.
Answer: The ex-wife and the ex-husband's brother are tenants in common, each owning a one-half interest.
The correct answer is C. A tenancy by the entirety can only exist between a married couple. Divorce severs the tenancy by the entirety because it terminates the unity of marriage. Upon divorce, the tenancy by the entirety is automatically converted into a tenancy in common, with each ex-spouse holding a one-half interest. As a tenant in common, the ex-husband's interest was freely descendible and devisable. When he died, his one-half interest passed to his brother under his will. Therefore, the ex-wife and the brother now own the home as tenants in common. A and B are incorrect because divorce legally terminates the tenancy by the entirety. D is incorrect because the default conversion is to a tenancy in common, not a joint tenancy.
- Two friends purchased a tract of land as joint tenants. To finance his share of the purchase, one of the friends gave a mortgage on his interest to a lender. The jurisdiction follows the title theory of mortgages. A few years later, the mortgagor friend died, and his will left his entire estate to his daughter. The surviving friend claims sole ownership of the land, while the lender claims its mortgage remains valid against a one-half interest in the property.
Answer: The surviving friend and the daughter are tenants in common, and the daughter's share is subject to the mortgage.
This question tests your understanding of how joint tenancy and mortgages interact, particularly under the title theory of mortgages. The key issue is whether granting a mortgage severs the joint tenancy and what happens to the mortgaged interest upon the mortgagor's death.
Under the title theory of mortgages, when a joint tenant grants a mortgage on their interest, legal title transfers to the mortgagee (lender). This transfer of title severs the joint tenancy because the unity of title is broken - the joint tenants no longer hold identical interests from the same source. Once severed, the parties become tenants in common, and there's no longer a right of survivorship.
When the mortgagor died, his interest as a tenant in common passed through his will to his daughter, along with the mortgage encumbering that interest. The daughter now holds a one-half interest subject to the mortgage, while the surviving friend holds the other half free and clear.
Answer A incorrectly assumes the joint tenancy remained intact and that survivorship rights would extinguish the mortgage. Answer B wrongly suggests the lender became a direct owner rather than holding a security interest in the daughter's inherited share. Answer C fails to recognize that the mortgage severed the joint tenancy, so survivorship rights never applied.
Remember this pattern: under title theory, a mortgage by one joint tenant always severs the joint tenancy, converting it to a tenancy in common. The mortgaged interest then passes through the estate rather than by survivorship.
- A mother owned a tract of land in fee simple. She executed a deed conveying the land 'to myself and my daughter as joint tenants with right of survivorship.' In a jurisdiction that has abolished the common law requirement of a straw person for creating a joint tenancy, what is the effect of this deed?
Answer: The deed creates a valid joint tenancy between the mother and daughter.
The correct answer is C. At common law, creating a joint tenancy required the four unities, and a direct conveyance from an owner to herself and another would fail for lack of the unities of time and title. This necessitated the use of a 'straw person' intermediary. However, the question specifies that the jurisdiction has abolished this requirement by statute, which is the modern trend. Such statutes explicitly allow a property owner to create a joint tenancy by a direct conveyance to themselves and another person without a straw person. Therefore, the deed is effective and creates a valid joint tenancy. A is incorrect because modern statutes permit this. B reflects the common law outcome, which the statute has changed. D mischaracterizes the interest created.
- Two brothers, Adam and Ben, owned a farm as tenants in common. Adam contributed 75% of the purchase price, and Ben contributed 25%. The deed did not specify their respective shares. The brothers had a falling out, and Adam brought an action for partition, seeking a partition sale and distribution of the proceeds in proportion to their contributions. Ben argued that the proceeds should be divided equally.
Answer: The proceeds should be divided equally because tenants in common are presumed to own equal shares regardless of contribution.
The correct answer is A. While joint tenants must have equal shares (the unity of interest), tenants in common can have unequal shares. However, when the deed is silent as to the respective shares, it is presumed that the tenants in common own equal undivided interests, regardless of their contributions to the purchase price. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence of a contrary agreement, but there is no such evidence here. Therefore, Adam and Ben are presumed to own equal one-half shares, and the proceeds of a partition sale would be divided equally. B is incorrect because the presumption is of equal shares. C is incorrect as an action for contribution typically applies to costs like taxes or repairs, not the initial purchase price, unless there was a loan agreement. D is incorrect because the presumption of equal shares applies unless rebutted, which does not strictly require a writing.
- An owner of a parcel of land executed and delivered a deed conveying the property 'to my Son and my Daughter, jointly.' The jurisdiction has a statute that presumes any conveyance to two or more unmarried persons creates a tenancy in common unless an intent to create a joint tenancy is expressly declared. Subsequently, Son died, leaving a valid will that devised his entire estate to his wife. Daughter claims sole ownership of the parcel through right of survivorship.
Answer: Daughter and Son's wife are tenants in common because the deed's language was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of a tenancy in common.
The correct answer is B. Most jurisdictions have a statutory presumption that a conveyance to two or more persons creates a tenancy in common, not a joint tenancy. To overcome this presumption, the deed must clearly express an intent to create a joint tenancy, typically by including language such as 'as joint tenants with right of survivorship.' The single word 'jointly' is generally considered ambiguous and insufficient to rebut the presumption. Therefore, the deed created a tenancy in common. As a tenant in common, Son's interest was freely devisable, and it passed to his wife through his will. Daughter and Son's wife now hold the property as tenants in common. A is incorrect because 'jointly' alone is usually not enough to create a joint tenancy. C is incorrect as there is no such presumption for conveyances from parents to children. D is incorrect because while specific language is preferred, it is not the only way; a clear expression of intent to create survivorship rights can suffice, although it was absent here.
- A grantor conveyed a farm 'to my three children, A, B, and C, as joint tenants for their lives, with the remainder to the survivor in fee simple.' Subsequently, A conveyed all of her interest in the farm to D. Then, B died intestate. Who has the present possessory right to the farm?
Answer: C and D.
The correct answer is A. The grant created a joint life estate in A, B, and C, with a contingent remainder in the last survivor. When A conveyed her interest to D, she severed the joint tenancy with respect to her one-third life estate interest. D took a life estate for the duration of A's life, holding it as a tenant in common with B and C. B and C remained joint tenants in their two-thirds share of the life estate. When B died, his interest in the joint life estate was extinguished and passed to C through the right of survivorship. Thus, C now holds a two-thirds interest in the life estate, and D holds a one-third interest (pur autre vie, measured by A's life). Both C and D have a present possessory right as tenants in common for the duration of the life estates. B's heirs have no interest because B held only a life estate that was subject to a right of survivorship.
- Three siblings, A, B, and C, owned a tract of land as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Sibling A, without the knowledge of B or C, conveyed her interest to a friend, D, by a properly executed and delivered deed. One month later, Sibling B died intestate, survived only by his son. Shortly thereafter, D died, leaving a will that devised all her property to a charity.
Answer: C owns a two-thirds interest, and the charity owns a one-third interest, as tenants in common.
The correct answer is C. This requires a multi-step analysis. First, A's conveyance to D severed the joint tenancy only as to A's one-third share. D took this share as a tenant in common. B and C remained joint tenants with each other as to their combined two-thirds share. The state of the title was: D holding a one-third interest as a tenant in common with B and C, who held a two-thirds interest as joint tenants. Second, when B died, his interest automatically passed to C due to the right of survivorship between them. B's interest was not descendible, so his son took nothing. At that point, C owned a two-thirds interest and D owned a one-third interest, both as tenants in common. Third, when D died, her one-third interest as a tenant in common was devisable and passed to the charity under her will. Thus, the final ownership is C with a two-thirds interest and the charity with a one-third interest, as tenants in common.
- A and B are joint tenants. A mortgages her interest to Bank; B dies. Lien-theory state. A's title?
Answer: A owns fee; Bank has lien.
Because this is a lien-theory state, A's mortgage to Bank was only a lien, not a transfer of title, so it did not sever the joint tenancy. When B died, A took the whole fee by right of survivorship, but Bank's lien on A's former interest survived. The tempting wrong answer is fee unencumbered, which forgets that survivorship does not erase A's own mortgage lien.
- Two individuals owned a commercial building as joint tenants with right of survivorship. One joint tenant entered into a valid written agreement to lease her interest in the property to a retailer for a term of ten years. The other joint tenant did not join in the lease. One year into the lease term, the lessor joint tenant was killed in a car accident. The surviving joint tenant immediately notified the retailer that the lease was terminated and demanded that the retailer vacate the premises.
Answer: The lease is terminated because the death of the lessor joint tenant extinguished her interest in the property.
The correct answer is B. In most jurisdictions, a lease executed by one joint tenant does not sever the joint tenancy. The lease is valid as to the lessor's interest, but it is subject to the right of survivorship. When the lessor joint tenant dies, her interest in the property is extinguished and vests entirely in the surviving joint tenant. Because the lease is contingent upon the lessor's interest, the lease is also terminated upon her death. The surviving joint tenant takes the property free of the lease. A is incorrect because the right of survivorship takes precedence over the lease. C is incorrect because one joint tenant has the right to lease their own interest without the other's consent; the lease is not void. D is incorrect because a lease creates a landlord-tenant relationship, not a co-tenancy in the fee simple.
