Property Final Flashcards
Tenancy in Common means separate but undivided interest in the property. True or false
True
How is interest inherited in tenancy in common (ie. marriage, will,..)
By will or deed
In a tenancy in common, If A and B have a TIC and A dies does A heirs or B get the property?
A’s heirs, there is no right to survivorship between A and B.
Is there a right of survivorship for joint tenancy?
Yes
What are the four unities of joint tenancy?
Time, Title, Interest, Possession
Can joint tenancies be severed?
Yes, they become tenancies in common.
Can you convey the property at death during joint tenancy?
No
If there is only time, titile, and possession for the joint tenancy is it a joint tenancy still?
No, must have all four or it is a tenancy in common.
If you want to end a joint tenancy when must you do it?
does the life of the other person. Death is too late.
Does joint tenancy have to be equal?
No, one can have 1/3 while the other has 2/3.
Who creates a tenancy by the entirety?
spouses
Does divorce end a tenancy by the entirety?
Yes, it becomes tenancy in common.
pg 1 on 390
A,B,C are joint tenancy but when A conveys to D it ends the joint tenancy between A and B and A and C but not B and C (they have joint tenancy still) but B and C have tenancy in common with D now.
O conveys Blackacre to A, B and C as joint tenants. Subsequently, A conveys his interest to D. Then B dies intestate, leaving H as his heir. What is the state of title?
When B dies leaving an heir H, B has his share split. D has A’s share as a tenant in common, C has C’s own share and B’s share that was in joint tenancy, and H has B’s share that was in tenancy in common.
T devises Blackacre to A and B as joint tenants for their joint lives, remainder to the survivor. What interests are created by the devise?
Important one to understand
Creates a life estate in A and B. Then there is a remainder in fee simple to the survivor. It is absolutely going to go to one of those two – whichever survives. Contingent, but doesn’t violate the rule because one of those two is the validating life.
Is a tenancy in common inheritable by wills, devisable and alienable?
Yes (important)
If the transaction was unclear when it’s two or more people in interest with the land what is it?
Court makes it tenancy in common.
Joint Tenancy MUST be severed during the life time.
true and important
What is the only way to end a tenancy by the entirely?
Must jointly agree to end it. By jointly conveying it to yourself as what you want it to be.
Can one spouse end a tenancy by the entirety?
No
If one spouse cant end a tenancy by the entirety, what does that mean for creditors to that one spouse?
They can’t take from the tenancy by the entirety
Can one person break a joint tenancy?
yes, a person may unilaterally sever joint tenancy without an intermediary (a third person to transfer the interest to, then have it transferred back).
Can the steps to sever a joint tenancy on the property count as actually severance?
the court justifies that the only way to actually sever a joint tenancy is when the property is sold. Steps leading up to a sale, such as placing a lien on the property don’t sever a joint tenancy.
A and B own Blackacre in joint tenancy. A conveys a 10-year term of years in Blackacre to C. After five years, A dies, devising all of his property to D. What are Bs rights?
The lease does not sever joint tenancy because it’s not a conveyance. When A dies, despite A’s will, Blackacre is going to B rather than D. The 10-year lease is gone – it disappears into thin air.
H and W, owners of Blackacre in joint tenancy, are getting a divorce. They sign a divorce agreement providing that Blackacre will be sold and the proceeds divided equally between H and W. Before Blackacre is sold, W dies. Does H have survivorship rights in Blackacre?
Divorce does not in itself sever a joint tenancy. H has the rights to Blackacre because W died.
The critical thing is that joint tenancy doesn’t end until the property is sold. An agreement does not sever the tenancy – only the sale.
Joint tenants A and B signs a written agreement giving B the rentals and possession of the land for her life. Does the agreement destroy the unity of possession? Upon A’s subsequent death, who owns the land?
B owns the land. Agreements like these don’t work as a severance. Severance needs to alter the succession and this one does not.
A convenience account is where one party is on the account solely to pay the other party’s bills.
True or false?
True
If I put my name on my moms bank account to pay the bills for the land, does that make us joint tenancy, tenancy in common or nothing?
If it was clear I only have a convenience account then its tenancy in common. If I was already named as a joint tenant then I would still be a joint tenant.
When deciding whether a property under tenancy in common should be partitioned through judicial order, the interests of all the tenants should be considered, not just the economic benefit to one of the tenants. true or false
True
Do we have partition in kind or partition by sale?
Partition in kind bc partition by sale is extreme.
When should partition by sale be used?
Only when the physical attributes of the land are such that a partition in kind is impracticable or inequitable, the interests of the owners would better be promoted by a partition by sale.
A and B are heirs of their father, who owned one item both A and B very much want – his old rocking chair. They cannot agree who is to have the chair. A brings a partition action. What relief should the court award?
Physical partition isn’t feasible – it will destroy the chair. If you put it up for sale, it might bring a whole lot more money than what it’s worth on the market and putting it up for sale will favor the wealthier person
This is calling for a settlement and the question is if the court can induce a settlement.
What is ouster?
Ouster” occurs when one party physically prevents the other party from gaining or remaining in possession in the property. If one co-tenant “ousts” the other co-tenant, the victim of the ouster can sue for wrongful ejectment.
Known as an action for mesne profits – she wants half of the fair market value
Can any court restrict a restrictive convenants that is against the 14th Amend? (what case is this said in)
No and Shelley v. Kreamer.
Are restrictive covenants still valid and in force?
Yes, they are still of good value and are enforceable.
True or false? If the gain for the community is larger than what is lost by the individual, then the court will enforce the covenant.
True