HellOnHeels wrote:Let's say that A conveyed to D instead. Then D would be TIC with B/C (with B and C being joint tenants still).
But A conveyed to C. So B/C are still joint tenants with respect to 2/3 of the property, with C owning another 1/3 from A.
When B dies, C get's B's 1/3. C now has A's 1/3, B's 1/3, and his own 1/3. He owns it all.
Wouldn't C's interest merge though? That's what I don't get.
I thought interests could only merge if one was a lesser duration/smaller interest (such as a life estate merging with a fee simple, or an easement merging with the servient estate). C would own two interests in fee simple, so merger wouldn't work. That's how I would explain it.
You could maybe also make an argument for, that if C's interests did merge, a court would find it wouldn't destroy the joint tenancy between B and C. Obviously O wanted there to be right of survivorship. It wouldn't make sense to let A convey to D and not destroy the survivorship between B and C, but if A conveys to C, it would. Then A could just convey to a strawman, who then would convey to C, and most jurisdictions have gotten rid of strawman, I think.