Concurrent Ownership

Question 1

a) Tenancy in Common:

Answer 1

undivided (right to use whole prop), fractional interest; no right of survivorship; default

i) Right to occupy w/o rent?
(1) CL rule: TinC who occupies more than share of common premises not liable because of such occupancy alone for rent or for use/occupation

Question 2

(2) Basilides:

Answer 2

TinC who occupies more than his part of prop cannot reap financial benefit from other tenants’ renting their portions out w/o paying for his personal use of that part of the prop owned by cotenants

(a) rationale: since Big House could’ve been rented out, ∆ should pay the profits the BH could have made
(i) counter: should have partitioned prop; ∆ as cotenant should have a right not to rent; πs should have just moved into Big House

Question 3

b) Joint Tenancy:

Answer 3

right of survivorship; equal interest (4 unities: time, title, interest, possession) (PITT)

Question 4

Taylor

Answer 4

transferring interest (or portion) destroys JT--> becomes TinC
(1)	partition (or selling then dividing proceeds) destroys TinC and JT

Question 5

c) Tenancy by the Entirety:

Answer 5

for married; cannot be severed by creditors (as opposed to other types)

i) differs from JT in that prop cannot be severed/transferred by one party. Also, cannot be partitioned
ii) Gender-based rights (doctrine of coverture)
(1) Robinson: abolished doctrine of coverture in TN; wife had joint right to use, control, and rents of prop; unable to sell w/o consent of other tenant

Question 6

2) Condos and Common areas

Answer 6

a) condos consist of ownership in fee simple of the unit and ownership as TinC for common areas

Question 7

b) Liability for common areas?

Answer 7

i) Dutcher: liability co-owner when (vicarious) liability arises from common areas is not under the traditional joint and several liability regime, but is limited to co-owner’s proportional ownership
(1) F: negl’c w/ respect to fixture in common areas caused fire; ∆ sued co-owner w/ only 1.572% pro rata undivided interest trying to get full damages under J/S lialia limited to 1.572% of damages

Question 8

Partition

Answer 8

in kind (separate parcel physically btwn co-tenants) or by sale

(1) Giles v. Sheridan – NE (1965) “Split Duplex”
(a) F: Joint tenancy on duplex between P and married couple (Ds); P deeds 1/20th of her estate to her nephew, destroying the joint tenancy; P paid off mortgage, sues for comp from Ds
(b) H: Ct. determines that this was joint tenancy between 3 people (instead of two) – thus Ds owe 2/3 of the mortgage to P
(i) Becomes tenancy in common between P and nephew
(ii) Joint tenancy in 2/3 of the condo remains between married Ds