- Who owns the farm following the daughter's death? Select one.
Answer: The son and the daughter's husband are tenants in common.
The correct answer is B. The modern default rule is that a conveyance to two or more persons creates a tenancy in common, unless there is clear language indicating an intent to create a joint tenancy (e.g., "as joint tenants with right of survivorship"). The language "to my son and my daughter equally" creates a tenancy in common. A tenant in common's interest is freely devisable and inheritable. Because the daughter died without a will, her one-half interest passes through the laws of intestacy to her heir, who is her surviving husband. Therefore, the son and the husband are now tenants in common.
- What are the rights of the other two siblings with respect to the rental income? Select one.
Answer: They are each entitled to an accounting for one-third of the net rental income received by the managing sibling.
The correct answer is B. A cotenant who leases property to a third party must account to the other cotenants for their pro rata share of the net rents received. The managing sibling can deduct reasonable expenses related to managing the property, but the net profit must be shared. The lease itself is valid as to the managing sibling's one-third interest. The other siblings' remedy is not to evict the tenant but to demand their share of the income. The ouster rule applies to rent owed by a cotenant in possession, not to rent collected from third parties.
- Is B legally entitled to a share of the insurance proceeds? Select one.
Answer: No, because the insurance policy is a personal contract between A and the insurer for A's benefit only.
The correct answer is C. A fire insurance policy is a personal indemnity contract. It protects the interest of the named insured, not the property itself. Unless the policy was procured on behalf of, or pursuant to an agreement between, all cotenants, a cotenant who purchases insurance in their own name and for their own benefit is entitled to keep the full proceeds. B had an insurable interest and could have purchased his own policy but did not. Therefore, B has no claim to the proceeds of A's personal contract.
- Who owns the vacation home? Select one.
Answer: The sister and the buyer are tenants in common because the contract of sale severed the joint tenancy.
The correct answer is B. Under the doctrine of equitable conversion, the execution of a specifically enforceable contract to sell real property severs a joint tenancy. At the moment the contract is signed, equitable title passes to the buyer. This act destroys the unity of title, severing the joint tenancy and converting it to a tenancy in common. Therefore, when the brother died, the right of survivorship had already been destroyed. His interest, now that of a tenant in common, is bound by the contract of sale. The buyer can compel specific performance from the brother's estate, resulting in the buyer and the sister being tenants in common.
- In the accounting accompanying the partition action, what amount is the first brother entitled to receive from the proceeds of the sale before the remaining balance is divided equally? Select one.
Answer: The $20,000 in value added by the garage and contribution for one-half of the property taxes he paid.
The correct answer is A. In a partition action, a cotenant is entitled to an accounting. For improvements, the improving cotenant cannot compel contribution for the cost, but is entitled to recover the value added to the property upon sale. Here, that is $20,000. For necessary carrying costs like property taxes, a cotenant who pays more than their pro rata share is entitled to contribution from the other cotenants. Here, the first brother paid the full $20,000 in taxes over five years, so he is entitled to contribution for the second brother's one-half share, which is $10,000. Thus, he receives a credit for the value of the improvement and contribution for the other's share of taxes.
- What advice should you give your client regarding his cousin's share of the furnace cost? Select one.
Answer: The client is entitled to contribution from his cousin for one-half the cost of the necessary repair.
The correct answer is B. While there is generally no right to contribution for improvements made by one cotenant, there is a right to contribution for necessary repairs. Replacing a failing furnace in an apartment building to provide heat for tenants is a necessary repair. A cotenant who pays for such a repair is entitled to compel contribution for the other cotenant's pro rata share, even without prior consent, particularly when the other cotenant was unreachable. An independent action for contribution can be brought; the cotenant does not have to wait for partition.
- What is the most accurate advice you can give your client regarding her claim to the profits? Select one.
Answer: She is not entitled to any share of the profits because a cotenant is permitted to retain profits derived from their own labor on the land.
The correct answer is C. The general rule is that a cotenant in possession is not required to share profits earned from using the land through their own labor, as long as this use does not permanently diminish the value of the land (e.g., by extracting minerals). Farming is considered a proper use of the land, not waste. The rules requiring sharing of profits apply to rents received from third parties or profits from activities that deplete the land's resources, not to the fruits of one cotenant's personal efforts.
- What is Beth's strongest legal argument to reclaim an interest in the property? Select one.
Answer: Amy breached a fiduciary duty owed between cotenants by acquiring sole title at the foreclosure sale, and Beth has a right to re-acquire her interest.
The correct answer is B. Cotenants stand in a confidential relationship to one another. This relationship creates a limited fiduciary duty, which prevents one cotenant from acquiring sole title through a foreclosure sale in a way that excludes the other cotenants. If one cotenant purchases the property at such a sale, the other cotenants can re-acquire their original interests by paying their pro rata share of the purchase price within a reasonable time. This remedy is often enforced by imposing a constructive trust on the purchasing cotenant. The sale itself is not void (A), but the purchasing cotenant's title is subject to the rights of the other cotenants.
- What is B's most viable cause of action against A? Select one.
Answer: An action for waste, because A's actions constituted an unreasonable use that permanently impaired the value of the estate.
The correct answer is A. A cotenant is liable for waste if they make a use of the property that unreasonably and permanently damages it. Clear-cutting valuable timber, which depletes the land of its natural resources and reduces its value, is a classic example of affirmative (or voluntary) waste. While B would also be entitled to an accounting for profits (choice C), the action for waste directly addresses the damage to the land itself and allows for damages or an injunction. Trespass (B) is incorrect because A, as a cotenant, has the right to possess the entire property. While cotenants have some duties, they are not general fiduciaries (D).
- Can the supplier force the sale of the home to satisfy its judgment against the husband? Select one.
Answer: No, because property held as tenants by the entirety is not subject to the claims of a separate creditor of only one spouse.
The correct answer is C. A key feature of a tenancy by the entirety is that it protects the property from the individual creditors of either spouse. The property is considered owned by the marital unit, not by the individuals. Therefore, a creditor with a judgment against only one spouse cannot attach or force the sale of property held in a tenancy by the entirety. The other choices are incorrect because they fail to recognize this fundamental protection.
- Will X likely succeed in his quiet title action? Select one.
Answer: No, because to adversely possess against a cotenant, there must be an ouster, and X's actions were not sufficient to oust Y.
The correct answer is C. The standard for adverse possession against a cotenant is much higher than against a stranger. Because each cotenant has the right to possess the whole property, one cotenant's exclusive possession is presumed to be permissive. To establish the necessary hostility for adverse possession, the possessing cotenant must commit an ouster—an act that puts the non-possessing cotenant on clear notice that their title is being repudiated. Merely possessing the property and paying taxes, even for a long time, is generally insufficient to constitute an ouster. X would need to have taken some affirmative step, like denying Y access or explicitly claiming sole ownership to Y, to start the adverse possession clock.
- Who owns the home after the ex-husband's death? Select one.
Answer: The ex-wife and the brother are tenants in common.
The correct answer is C. A tenancy by the entirety can only exist between married spouses. A final divorce decree automatically severs the tenancy by the entirety and converts it into a tenancy in common. Therefore, after the divorce, the ex-husband and ex-wife each owned a one-half interest as tenants in common. A tenant in common's interest is freely transferable and devisable. When the ex-husband died, his one-half interest passed according to his will to his brother. The ex-wife retained her one-half interest. Thus, the ex-wife and the brother are now tenants in common.
- What is the state of the title to the land after B's death? Select one.
Answer: D and C are tenants in common, with D owning a one-third interest and C owning a two-thirds interest.
When you encounter joint tenancy problems, focus on two key rules: joint tenants hold equal shares with right of survivorship, but selling your interest severs the joint tenancy and converts it to tenancy in common for that portion.
Initially, A, B, and C each owned one-third interests as joint tenants. When A sold to D, this severed A's portion from the joint tenancy. D became a tenant in common holding a one-third interest, while B and C remained joint tenants holding their combined two-thirds interest.
When B died, the right of survivorship operated only between the remaining joint tenants (B and C). B's one-third interest automatically passed to C, not to his son through the will. Joint tenancy rights supersede wills. So C now owns two-thirds (her original one-third plus B's one-third), while D still owns his one-third as a tenant in common.
Answer A is wrong because D retains his one-third interest—C doesn't own the entire property. Answer B incorrectly suggests D and C are joint tenants with equal shares, but D was never part of the joint tenancy, and the shares aren't equal. Answer C wrongly assumes B's son inherited B's interest, but joint tenancy rights of survivorship prevent this—the will cannot transfer what B no longer owned at death.
Remember: selling a joint tenancy interest severs it permanently for that share, creating a "hybrid" ownership where some parties are joint tenants and others are tenants in common. Always track which relationships remain as joint tenancies when analyzing survivorship rights.
- What is B's best remedy against A to recover the payments made on A's behalf? Select one.
Answer: B can sue A for contribution for A's share of the mortgage payments.
The correct answer is A. When one cotenant pays more than their pro rata share of a necessary carrying cost, such as a mortgage payment, to preserve the common property, they have a right to contribution from the other cotenants. B did not act as a volunteer; he paid to protect his own interest from being extinguished by foreclosure. B can bring an independent action for contribution to obtain a money judgment against A. While this could also be handled in a partition action (B), it is not the only remedy.
- What is the ousted friend's best claim against the friend in possession? Select one.
Answer: A claim for $3,000, representing her one-half share of the fair rental value for the period of the ouster.
The correct answer is A. Generally, a cotenant in exclusive possession does not owe rent to other cotenants. However, an exception exists if the possessing cotenant has ousted the other(s). Changing the locks and denying access constitutes an ouster. When an ouster occurs, the ousted cotenant is entitled to receive their pro rata share of the property's fair rental value. Here, the total fair rental value was $6,000 ($2,000/month for 3 months), and the ousted friend's one-half share is $3,000.
- In the division of the sale proceeds, what is the improving partner entitled to regarding the HVAC system? Select one.
Answer: A credit for the $30,000 in value that the HVAC system added to the sale price.
The correct answer is C. A cotenant who makes an improvement to the property without the consent of the other cotenants has no right to compel contribution for the cost. However, upon partition or sale of the property, the improving cotenant is entitled to recover the value that the improvement added to the property. The recovery is limited to the lesser of the improvement's cost or the value it added. Here, the system cost $50,000 but only added $30,000 in value. Therefore, the improving partner will receive a credit for $30,000 from the sale proceeds before the remainder is split between the partners.
- Is A likely to succeed in the action for partition? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because the clause prohibiting partition is an unreasonable restraint on alienation and is therefore void.
The correct answer is C. The right of a cotenant to seek partition is an inherent property right. A direct, disabling restraint on the power to partition, such as the clause in the will, is generally considered an unreasonable restraint on alienation and is held to be void as against public policy. Because the restraining clause is void, the children hold the property as joint tenants with the usual rights, including the absolute right to seek partition. A does not need to show hardship; the right is absolute.
- Who holds title to the property following the brother's death? Select one.
Answer: The sister and the mortgagee are tenants in common.
The correct answer is A. In a title theory jurisdiction, executing a mortgage is considered a transfer of title, which severs the unity of title and destroys the joint tenancy. The severance converts the estate into a tenancy in common between the mortgaging cotenant (the brother) and the other cotenant (the sister). When the brother granted the mortgage, he became a tenant in common with his sister, and the mortgagee acquired a security interest in his one-half share. Upon the brother's death, his interest did not pass to his sister via survivorship but instead passed to his estate, subject to the mortgage. The mortgagee can now foreclose on that one-half interest.
- Following A's death, what are B's rights with respect to the tenant? Select one.
Answer: B can evict the tenant because the lease is terminated.
When you encounter joint tenancy questions involving leases and death, focus on how the right of survivorship interacts with the leasing arrangement.
Here, A leased the entire property without B's consent, but the jurisdiction follows the majority rule that such a lease doesn't sever the joint tenancy. This means the joint tenancy remained intact despite the lease. When A died, B automatically became the sole owner of the entire property through the right of survivorship.
The crucial principle is that A could only lease what A owned. As a joint tenant, A had the right to possess and use the entire property during A's lifetime, so A could grant a lease based on that right. However, A's interest was contingent—it would either expand to full ownership if B died first, or disappear entirely if A died first. When A died, A's interest (including the lease rights A granted) terminated completely. Since the lease was based solely on A's now-extinguished interest, it ends with A's death.
Choice A is wrong because B isn't bound by a lease that was based entirely on A's terminated interest. Choice B incorrectly suggests the lease was void from the beginning—it was actually valid during A's lifetime. Choice C misapplies tenancy in common concepts; B became the sole owner, not a co-tenant with the lessee.
Remember this pattern: when a joint tenant dies, any lease they granted based on their joint tenancy interest dies with them, unless the surviving joint tenant chooses to honor it. The right of survivorship trumps lease arrangements.
- After the son's death, who owns the home? Select one.
Answer: The daughter and the son's wife are tenants in common.
The correct answer is B. Most jurisdictions today allow a joint tenant to sever the joint tenancy by conveying their interest to themselves. This act destroys the unity of title and/or time, converting the joint tenancy into a tenancy in common. Because the son validly severed the joint tenancy, the right of survivorship was destroyed. His interest became that of a tenant in common, which is devisable by will. Therefore, upon his death, his one-half interest passed to his wife under his will, making the daughter and the wife tenants in common.
