Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Cotenancy Types
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Cotenancy TypesQuestion 1 of 20

Married H and W own as tenants by the entirety. H alone deeds his interest to X. X gets?

Nothing; H cannot sever alone.
X and W are tenants in common.
X and W are joint tenants.
H and W are tenants in common.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Cotenancy Types

Practice Cotenancy Types in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Cotenancy Types, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Married H and W own as tenants by the entirety. H alone deeds his interest to X. X gets?

  1. Nothing; H cannot sever alone. (correct answer)
  2. X and W are tenants in common.
  3. X and W are joint tenants.
  4. H and W are tenants in common.
Explanation: 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.

Question 2

A and B are joint tenants. A mortgages her interest to Bank; B dies. Lien-theory state. A's title?

  1. Bank owns A's former half.
  2. Bank and A become co-tenants.
  3. A owns fee unencumbered.
  4. A owns fee; Bank has lien. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 3

A and B are joint tenants with survivorship. A's will leaves her interest to C. A dies. Who owns?

  1. B and C are tenants in common.
  2. B owns all by survivorship. (correct answer)
  3. C owns A's half; B owns half.
  4. C owns all from A's devise.
Explanation: 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.

Question 4

O to A for life, remainder to B and C as joint tenants. B conveys to D; C dies. Who owns the remainder?

  1. D owns all by survivorship.
  2. C's heirs own the remainder.
  3. A owns the whole remainder.
  4. C's heirs and D are cotenants. (correct answer)
Explanation: B's conveyance to D severs the joint tenancy as to B's share, so D and C hold the remainder as tenants in common, not joint tenants. When C dies, her share passes to her heirs; D keeps his own share. The tempting answer is D owns all by survivorship, but survivorship ended when B conveyed, so D cannot take C's share.

Question 5

A and B own as joint tenants. A conveys her interest to C, then dies. How do B and C hold?

  1. B owns all by survivorship.
  2. B and C are joint tenants.
  3. B and C are tenants in common. (correct answer)
  4. C owns the entire property.
Explanation: 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.

Question 6

An elderly woman and her caregiver owned a house as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The woman became completely dependent on the caregiver, who then convinced the woman to execute a deed transferring her interest in the house to the caregiver for no consideration. The woman's son later discovered this and filed suit to set aside the deed on the grounds of undue influence. Before the lawsuit could be resolved, the woman died. The jurisdiction has a slayer statute that also applies to cases of elder abuse.

  1. The caregiver owns the entire house because the deed was valid when executed, severing the joint tenancy.
  2. The caregiver owns the entire house because the woman's death and the right of survivorship extinguished the claim.
  3. The woman's estate and the caregiver are tenants in common if the deed is set aside for undue influence, effectively severing the tenancy.
  4. The caregiver owns the entire house, but holds the woman's former share in a constructive trust for her estate. (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. This fact pattern involves the intersection of property law and equity. If one joint tenant unlawfully kills another, slayer statutes typically sever the joint tenancy and impose a constructive trust on the killer's share for the benefit of the victim's estate to prevent unjust enrichment. Many jurisdictions extend this principle to cases of elder abuse or undue influence. While the right of survivorship would technically operate at law, equity will intervene. Setting the deed aside (Option C) is one remedy, but a more common equitable remedy in this context is to impose a constructive trust. This means the caregiver would hold legal title to the entire property (partly by deed, partly by survivorship), but would be required to hold the decedent's one-half share for the benefit of her estate. This prevents the caregiver from profiting from their wrongful act. A is incorrect because the deed is voidable. B is incorrect because the claim is not extinguished. C is plausible but D is a more precise equitable remedy often applied in these 'unworthy taker' scenarios.

Question 7

Two sisters owned a parcel of land as joint tenants with right of survivorship. They had a disagreement, and one sister filed a lawsuit seeking partition of the property. While the partition action was pending, but before a final judgment was entered, the other sister died. The deceased sister's will left her entire estate to her husband. The surviving sister now claims sole ownership of the land and has moved to dismiss the partition action as moot.

  1. The action is moot, and the surviving sister is the sole owner because the mere filing of a partition action does not sever a joint tenancy. (correct answer)
  2. The action is not moot, and the deceased sister's husband is a tenant in common because the filing of the partition action severed the joint tenancy.
  3. The action is not moot, and the court should order a partition sale with the proceeds to be split between the surviving sister and the deceased sister's husband.
  4. The action is moot, but the surviving sister must pay the deceased sister's estate for the value of her one-half interest.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. In most jurisdictions, the mere filing of a partition action is not sufficient to sever a joint tenancy. Severance occurs only when a court enters a final judgment of partition. If one of the joint tenants dies while the action is pending, the right of survivorship operates, and the deceased tenant's interest is extinguished. The surviving joint tenant becomes the sole owner of the property. As a result, the partition action becomes moot because there is no longer any property to partition. B and C are incorrect because the tenancy was not severed before death. D is incorrect because the right of survivorship means the deceased sister's interest vanished at death; her estate has no claim to its value.

Question 8

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.

  1. The son will succeed because co-tenants have a mutual obligation to pay property taxes, and a co-tenant who pays more than their pro rata share is entitled to contribution.
  2. The son will fail because the duty to pay taxes falls solely on the co-tenant who is in possession of the property.
  3. The son will succeed, but only if he can prove his sister was financially able to contribute during those years.
  4. 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. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 9

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.

  1. The surviving friend owns the entire tract free of the mortgage because the right of survivorship extinguished the mortgage.
  2. The surviving friend and the lender are tenants in common, with the lender's interest limited to the amount of the debt.
  3. The surviving friend owns the entire tract, but it is subject to the mortgage on a one-half interest.
  4. The surviving friend and the daughter are tenants in common, and the daughter's share is subject to the mortgage. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 10

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.

  1. The proceeds should be divided equally because tenants in common are presumed to own equal shares regardless of contribution. (correct answer)
  2. The proceeds should be divided 75% to Adam and 25% to Ben because shares in a tenancy in common are proportional to contribution.
  3. The proceeds should be divided equally, but Adam is entitled to reimbursement from Ben for the unequal contribution before the division.
  4. The proceeds should be divided 75% to Adam and 25% to Ben, but only if there was a written agreement to that effect.
Explanation: 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.

Question 11

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.

  1. Daughter is the sole owner because the word 'jointly' is sufficient to create a joint tenancy.
  2. 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. (correct answer)
  3. Daughter is the sole owner because a conveyance from a parent to children is presumed to create a right of survivorship.
  4. Daughter and Son's wife are tenants in common because any attempt to create a joint tenancy without the phrase 'with right of survivorship' is void.
Explanation: 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.

Question 12

A deed conveyed a tract of land 'to A and B as tenants by the entirety.' At the time of the conveyance, A and B were engaged but not yet married. They married one month after receiving the deed. Two years later, A died, leaving all her property by will to her child from a prior marriage. B claims sole ownership of the tract. The jurisdiction recognizes tenancies by the entirety.

  1. B is the sole owner because the subsequent marriage perfected the tenancy by the entirety, allowing the right of survivorship to operate.
  2. B and A's child are tenants in common because the original conveyance created a tenancy in common, as A and B were not married.
  3. B and A's child are tenants in common because the original conveyance created a joint tenancy, which was not devisable.
  4. B is the sole owner because the conveyance to an engaged couple 'as tenants by the entirety' creates a valid joint tenancy with right of survivorship. (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. A tenancy by the entirety requires the grantees to be married at the time of the conveyance. Because A and B were not married, the attempt to create a tenancy by the entirety failed. When this happens, courts look to the grantor's intent. The use of the words 'tenants by the entirety' strongly implies an intent to create a right of survivorship. Therefore, most courts will construe the failed grant as creating a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, as this is the closest legal equivalent that reflects the grantor's intent. The subsequent marriage does not retroactively create a tenancy by the entirety (so A is incorrect). As joint tenants, when A died, her interest passed to B by right of survivorship, and her will was ineffective as to this property. B is incorrect because tenancy in common does not reflect the survivorship intent. C is internally inconsistent; if it were a joint tenancy, the property would not pass to the child.

Question 13

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.

  1. The daughter may compel partition because as a life tenant, she has a sufficient possessory interest in the property. (correct answer)
  2. The daughter may not compel partition because she holds only a life estate, not a fee simple interest.
  3. The daughter may not compel partition without the consent of the charity, which holds the remainder interest.
  4. The daughter may compel partition, but only a partition in kind, not a partition by sale.
Explanation: 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.

Question 14

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.

  1. The wife is the sole owner because the husband's attempted conveyance to his son was void. (correct answer)
  2. The wife and the son are tenants in common because the husband's conveyance severed the tenancy.
  3. The wife is the sole owner because her right of survivorship took precedence over the husband's invalid deed.
  4. The son is the sole owner because the husband's deed effectively transferred his survivorship interest.
Explanation: 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.

Question 15

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.

  1. 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. (correct answer)
  2. The creditor cannot attach the man's interest because the marriage converted the joint tenancy into a tenancy by the entirety.
  3. The creditor can place a lien on the man's interest, but it cannot force a sale of the property while the couple remains married and resides there.
  4. The creditor cannot attach the man's interest because property acquired before marriage is considered separate property and is shielded from spousal debts.
Explanation: 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.

Question 16

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.

  1. C owns the entire tract of land.
  2. C and B's son each own a one-half interest as tenants in common.
  3. C owns a two-thirds interest, and the charity owns a one-third interest, as tenants in common. (correct answer)
  4. C, B's son, and the charity each own a one-third interest as tenants in common.
Explanation: 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.

Question 17

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.

  1. The surviving friend owns the entire tract free of the mortgage because the right of survivorship extinguished the mortgage.
  2. The surviving friend and the lender are tenants in common, with the lender's interest limited to the amount of the debt.
  3. The surviving friend owns the entire tract, but it is subject to the mortgage on a one-half interest.
  4. The surviving friend and the daughter are tenants in common, and the daughter's share is subject to the mortgage. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 18

A deed conveyed a tract of land 'to A and B as tenants by the entirety.' At the time of the conveyance, A and B were engaged but not yet married. They married one month after receiving the deed. Two years later, A died, leaving all her property by will to her child from a prior marriage. B claims sole ownership of the tract. The jurisdiction recognizes tenancies by the entirety.

  1. B is the sole owner because the subsequent marriage perfected the tenancy by the entirety, allowing the right of survivorship to operate.
  2. B and A's child are tenants in common because the original conveyance created a tenancy in common, as A and B were not married.
  3. B and A's child are tenants in common because the original conveyance created a joint tenancy, which was not devisable.
  4. B is the sole owner because the conveyance to an engaged couple 'as tenants by the entirety' creates a valid joint tenancy with right of survivorship. (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. A tenancy by the entirety requires the grantees to be married at the time of the conveyance. Because A and B were not married, the attempt to create a tenancy by the entirety failed. When this happens, courts look to the grantor's intent. The use of the words 'tenants by the entirety' strongly implies an intent to create a right of survivorship. Therefore, most courts will construe the failed grant as creating a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, as this is the closest legal equivalent that reflects the grantor's intent. The subsequent marriage does not retroactively create a tenancy by the entirety (so A is incorrect). As joint tenants, when A died, her interest passed to B by right of survivorship, and her will was ineffective as to this property. B is incorrect because tenancy in common does not reflect the survivorship intent. C is internally inconsistent; if it were a joint tenancy, the property would not pass to the child.

Question 19

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.

  1. Partition will be denied because property held by the entirety cannot be partitioned.
  2. Partition will be granted because the failed attempt to create a tenancy by the entirety resulted in a tenancy in common. (correct answer)
  3. Partition will be granted because the failed attempt to create a tenancy by the entirety resulted in a joint tenancy.
  4. Partition will be denied until a court can reform the deed to reflect the parties' original intent.
Explanation: 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.

Question 20

A mother and daughter owned a condominium as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The daughter entered into a valid, written contract to sell her interest in the condominium to a buyer. Before the closing date, the daughter was killed in an accident. The buyer now claims a right to purchase a one-half interest in the condominium from the daughter's estate. The mother claims full ownership of the condominium. The jurisdiction applies the doctrine of equitable conversion.

  1. The mother is the sole owner because the daughter died before the deed was delivered, so the joint tenancy was not severed.
  2. The buyer is entitled to purchase a one-half interest because the contract of sale severed the joint tenancy under the doctrine of equitable conversion. (correct answer)
  3. The mother is the sole owner because a contract to sell by one joint tenant is unenforceable without the consent of the other joint tenant.
  4. The buyer is entitled to purchase a one-half interest, but holds it as a joint tenant with the mother.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. In a jurisdiction that applies the doctrine of equitable conversion, the execution of an enforceable contract to sell real property severs a joint tenancy. Under this doctrine, equity regards the buyer as the owner of the real property from the moment the contract is signed. This transfer of equitable title is sufficient to destroy the unity of interest, severing the joint tenancy and converting it into a tenancy in common. Therefore, when the daughter died, her interest as a tenant in common passed to her estate and is subject to the buyer's right of specific performance. A is incorrect because equitable conversion severs the tenancy at the contract stage, not at closing. C is incorrect because a joint tenant can contract to sell their own interest without the other's consent. D is incorrect because the severance creates a tenancy in common, not a new joint tenancy.