Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Cotenant Rights

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Cotenant RightsQuestion 1 of 20

A and B own a house as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Without B's knowledge, A signs a valid five-year lease for the entire property with a tenant. The jurisdiction follows the majority rule that a lease by one joint tenant does not sever the joint tenancy. Two years into the lease term, A is killed in an accident.

Following A's death, what are B's rights with respect to the tenant? Select one.

B is bound by the lease for its remaining three-year term.

B can evict the tenant because the lease was void from the beginning without B's signature.

B and the tenant are now tenants in common for the remainder of the lease term.

B can evict the tenant because the lease is terminated.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Cotenant Rights

Practice Cotenant Rights 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 Cotenant Rights, 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

Following A's death, what are B's rights with respect to the tenant? Select one.

B is bound by the lease for its remaining three-year term.
B can evict the tenant because the lease was void from the beginning without B's signature.
B and the tenant are now tenants in common for the remainder of the lease term.
B can evict the tenant because the lease is terminated. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 2

You are representing a client who owns a farm as a tenant in common with her brother. The brother lives on the farm and, through his own labor and at his own expense, cultivated and harvested a crop of soybeans, which he sold for a profit of $50,000. Your client, who lives in a different state and did not contribute to the farming efforts, has demanded one-half of the profits.

What is the most accurate advice you can give your client regarding her claim to the profits? Select one.

She is entitled to one-half of the profits because all profits derived from cotenancy property must be shared pro rata.
She is entitled to one-half of the profits, but her brother may deduct his reasonable expenses for producing the crop.
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. (correct answer)
She is only entitled to a share of the profits if she can prove that her brother's exclusive use of the farm constituted an ouster.

Explanation: 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.

Question 3

Two sisters, Amy and Beth, owned a property as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The property was subject to a mortgage on which they were both liable. After they both fell behind on payments, the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. At the foreclosure sale, Amy, without informing Beth, bid on the property and acquired sole title. Beth later learned of the purchase and offered to pay Amy one-half of the purchase price, but Amy refused.

What is Beth's strongest legal argument to reclaim an interest in the property? Select one.

The foreclosure sale is invalid because Amy engaged in self-dealing by purchasing the property.
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. (correct answer)
Amy's purchase did not affect the joint tenancy, which continues to exist as it did before the sale.
Beth has no rights because the foreclosure sale extinguished all prior interests, and Amy was free to purchase the property like any other bidder.

Explanation: 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.

Question 4

A father conveyed a farm "to my son and my daughter equally." The son and daughter took possession of the farm. Several years later, the daughter died unexpectedly without a will. The daughter is survived by her husband. The son claims he now owns the entire farm.

Who owns the farm following the daughter's death? Select one.

The son owns the entire farm through a right of survivorship.
The son and the daughter's husband are tenants in common. (correct answer)
The son owns his one-half interest, and the daughter's one-half interest escheats to the state.
The son owns the entire farm because the conveyance did not create a valid co-tenancy.

Explanation: 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.

Question 5

A husband and wife owned their home as tenants by the entirety. Their marriage was legally dissolved by a final divorce decree. The decree made no mention of the home. Six months after the divorce, the ex-husband was killed in a car accident. His valid will left all of his property to his brother.

Who owns the home after the ex-husband's death? Select one.

The ex-wife owns the home in its entirety.
The brother owns the home in its entirety.
The ex-wife and the brother are tenants in common. (correct answer)
The ex-wife and the ex-husband's estate are joint tenants.

Explanation: 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.

Question 6

Following A's death, what are B's rights with respect to the tenant? Select one.

B is bound by the lease for its remaining three-year term.
B can evict the tenant because the lease was void from the beginning without B's signature.
B and the tenant are now tenants in common for the remainder of the lease term.
B can evict the tenant because the lease is terminated. (correct answer)

Question 7

Who owns the home after the ex-husband's death? Select one.

The ex-wife owns the home in its entirety.
The brother owns the home in its entirety.
The ex-wife and the brother are tenants in common. (correct answer)
The ex-wife and the ex-husband's estate are joint tenants.

Question 8

What is Beth's strongest legal argument to reclaim an interest in the property? Select one.

The foreclosure sale is invalid because Amy engaged in self-dealing by purchasing the property.
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. (correct answer)
Amy's purchase did not affect the joint tenancy, which continues to exist as it did before the sale.
Beth has no rights because the foreclosure sale extinguished all prior interests, and Amy was free to purchase the property like any other bidder.

Question 9

A brother and sister owned a vacation home as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The brother, experiencing financial difficulties, entered into a written contract to sell his one-half interest to a buyer. The contract set a closing date 60 days in the future. Before the closing date arrived, the brother was killed in an accident.

Who owns the vacation home? Select one.

The sister owns the entire home because the joint tenancy was not severed before the brother's death.
The sister and the buyer are tenants in common because the contract of sale severed the joint tenancy. (correct answer)
The sister and the brother's estate are tenants in common because the contract was a personal obligation of the brother.
The buyer owns the entire home because he can compel specific performance from the sister.

Explanation: 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.

Question 10

Two friends purchased a vacation cabin as joint tenants with right of survivorship. After a falling out, one friend changed all the locks on the cabin and sent the other friend a text message stating, 'Don't even think about coming up here this summer; this is my place now.' The ousted friend took no immediate action. For the three months of summer, the fair rental value of the cabin was $2,000 per month.

What is the ousted friend's best claim against the friend in possession? Select one.

A claim for $3,000, representing her one-half share of the fair rental value for the period of the ouster. (correct answer)
A claim that the joint tenancy has been severed by the ouster, converting their ownership to a tenancy in common.
A claim for the full fair rental value of $6,000, because her right to possess the whole property was denied.
No claim for rent, because a cotenant in sole possession of a property is not required to pay rent to non-possessing cotenants.

Explanation: 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.

Question 11

A woman devised her house "to my three children, A, B, and C, as joint tenants with right of survivorship." The will included a clause stating, "This property shall not be subject to partition by any of my children." Shortly after the woman's death, A filed a lawsuit seeking partition by sale of the property.

Is A likely to succeed in the action for partition? Select one.

No, because the will created a valid restraint on the right to partition, which will be enforced by the court.
No, because a joint tenant's right to partition is not absolute and is subject to the testator's intent.
Yes, because the clause prohibiting partition is an unreasonable restraint on alienation and is therefore void. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if A can demonstrate that continuing the co-ownership would result in extreme prejudice or hardship.

Explanation: 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.

Question 12

Two brothers inherited a parcel of land as tenants in common. The first brother, who lived on the property, paid the annual property taxes of $4,000 for five consecutive years. During that time, he also spent $15,000 to build a new garage, which an appraiser determined increased the property's value by $20,000. The second brother, who lived out of state, contributed nothing. The first brother has now filed an action for partition by sale.

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.

The $20,000 in value added by the garage and contribution for one-half of the property taxes he paid. (correct answer)
The $15,000 cost of the garage and contribution for the full amount of the property taxes he paid.
Only contribution for one-half of the property taxes, because there is no right to contribution for improvements made without the other cotenant's consent.
Only the $20,000 in value added by the garage, because the cotenant in possession is responsible for all carrying costs like taxes.

Explanation: 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.

Question 13

A brother and sister own a parcel of land as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The brother, without the sister's knowledge, takes out a loan and secures it with a mortgage on his interest in the property. The jurisdiction follows the title theory of mortgages, which treats the granting of a mortgage as a transfer of title. A year later, the brother dies, with the mortgage still outstanding.

Who holds title to the property following the brother's death? Select one.

The sister and the mortgagee are tenants in common. (correct answer)
The sister holds title to the entire property in fee simple absolute.
The sister and the brother's estate are tenants in common.
The sister holds title to the entire property, but it is subject to the mortgage.

Explanation: 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.

Question 14

Who owns the farm following the daughter's death? Select one.

The son owns the entire farm through a right of survivorship.
The son and the daughter's husband are tenants in common. (correct answer)
The son owns his one-half interest, and the daughter's one-half interest escheats to the state.
The son owns the entire farm because the conveyance did not create a valid co-tenancy.

Question 15

Two brothers, X and Y, inherited a vacant lot as tenants in common. For 25 years, X exclusively possessed the lot, paid all property taxes, and built a small shed on it. Y lived in another country and had no contact with X or the property during this time. The jurisdiction's statutory period for adverse possession is 20 years. X now brings an action to quiet title, claiming full ownership.

Will X likely succeed in his quiet title action? Select one.

Yes, because his exclusive possession and payment of taxes for a period longer than the statutory period is sufficient to establish adverse possession.
Yes, because Y's failure to visit or assert his rights for over 20 years constitutes abandonment of his interest.
No, because to adversely possess against a cotenant, there must be an ouster, and X's actions were not sufficient to oust Y. (correct answer)
No, because a cotenant can never adversely possess against another cotenant as a matter of law.

Explanation: 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.

Question 16

A, B, and C owned a tract of land as joint tenants with right of survivorship. A sold her interest to D through a valid deed. Subsequently, B died, leaving a will that devised all his property to his son.

What is the state of the title to the land after B's death? Select one.

C owns the entire property in fee simple.
D and C are joint tenants, each with a one-half interest.
D, C, and B's son are tenants in common, each with a one-third interest.
D and C are tenants in common, with D owning a one-third interest and C owning a two-thirds interest. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 17

What is the most accurate advice you can give your client regarding her claim to the profits? Select one.

She is entitled to one-half of the profits because all profits derived from cotenancy property must be shared pro rata.
She is entitled to one-half of the profits, but her brother may deduct his reasonable expenses for producing the crop.
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. (correct answer)
She is only entitled to a share of the profits if she can prove that her brother's exclusive use of the farm constituted an ouster.

Question 18

A mother conveyed her home to her son and daughter "as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and not as tenants in common." The son, wanting his wife to inherit his interest, later executed a quitclaim deed conveying his entire interest in the property from himself, as a joint tenant, to himself, as a tenant in common. The deed was properly recorded. The son died a year later, and his will left all his property to his wife.

After the son's death, who owns the home? Select one.

The daughter owns the home in its entirety through the right of survivorship.
The daughter and the son's wife are tenants in common. (correct answer)
The daughter and the son's wife are joint tenants.
The daughter owns the home because the son's deed to himself was an invalid conveyance.

Explanation: 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.

Question 19

Two business partners purchased a commercial warehouse as tenants in common. One partner, without the other's consent, spent $50,000 to install a new, highly efficient HVAC system, which was a significant upgrade but not a necessary repair. The other partner refused to pay for half of the system. A year later, the partners decided to sell the warehouse. The new HVAC system increased the sale price by $30,000.

In the division of the sale proceeds, what is the improving partner entitled to regarding the HVAC system? Select one.

A credit for the full $50,000 cost of the HVAC system.
A credit for $25,000, representing the other partner's one-half share of the cost.
A credit for the $30,000 in value that the HVAC system added to the sale price. (correct answer)
Nothing, because there is no right to contribution for improvements made without a cotenant's consent.

Explanation: 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.

Question 20

A and B owned a property as tenants in common. The property was encumbered by a single mortgage securing a loan on which both were liable. A defaulted on her share of the mortgage payments. To prevent foreclosure on the entire property, B paid the full mortgage payment, including A's overdue share, for six consecutive months. A has refused to reimburse B.

What is B's best remedy against A to recover the payments made on A's behalf? Select one.

B can sue A for contribution for A's share of the mortgage payments. (correct answer)
B's only remedy is to seek a credit for the payments in a future partition action.
B can sue to have A's interest in the property forfeited due to the default.
B has no remedy because he acted as a volunteer in paying A's share of the debt.

Explanation: 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.