Property Questions Forum

[bananapeanutbutter]

Does anyone know if joint tenants severe the joint tenancy if they convey a life estate? If not, is the life estate holder a tenant in common with the other joint tenant?

A and B are joint tenants. A conveys a life estate to C.

I'd imagine if he conveyed his reversion to D, then that would definitely severe the JT.

IIRC, unlike a 50 year lease where the O still retains the property (ownership not possession)... in a JT conveying LE, the O (A in this case) has given up all ownership and possession over the land for the duration of the LE. ... therefore, this is why lease does not sever but LE does.

Thanks a lot! Just want to make sure I follow you - so even though the party keeps a reversion that will go to either them or their heirs, by giving a life estate they are losing their ownership? But conveying property for a 1000 year lease wouldn't sacrifice their ownership?

[swtlilsoni]

Does anyone know if joint tenants severe the joint tenancy if they convey a life estate? If not, is the life estate holder a tenant in common with the other joint tenant?

A and B are joint tenants. A conveys a life estate to C.

I'd imagine if he conveyed his reversion to D, then that would definitely severe the JT.

Wait..I thought you're not allowed to alienate a joint tenancy at all..

[bananapeanutbutter]

Does anyone know if joint tenants severe the joint tenancy if they convey a life estate? If not, is the life estate holder a tenant in common with the other joint tenant?

A and B are joint tenants. A conveys a life estate to C.

I'd imagine if he conveyed his reversion to D, then that would definitely severe the JT.

Wait..I thought you're not allowed to alienate a joint tenancy at all..

You can definitely rent it out.

[Jsa725]

.

[bananapeanutbutter]

Does anyone know if joint tenants severe the joint tenancy if they convey a life estate? If not, is the life estate holder a tenant in common with the other joint tenant?

A and B are joint tenants. A conveys a life estate to C.

I'd imagine if he conveyed his reversion to D, then that would definitely severe the JT.

IIRC, unlike a 50 year lease where the O still retains the property (ownership not possession)... in a JT conveying LE, the O (A in this case) has given up all ownership and possession over the land for the duration of the LE. ... therefore, this is why lease does not sever but LE does.

Thanks a lot! Just want to make sure I follow you - so even though the party keeps a reversion that will go to either them or their heirs, by giving a life estate they are losing their ownership? But conveying property for a 1000 year lease wouldn't sacrifice their ownership?

yes, once the LE is conveyed O (grantor) has ZERO ownership interest in the property. O owns nothing. only after the death of the grantee will O be able to exercise both ownership and possession.... both A and B would have to re-create the JT (4 unities) again after the LE, otherwise they would hold as tenants in common.

i got you. kind of changes the way i think about life estates in general. thanks!

[Jsa725]

.

[swtlilsoni]

yeah okay so basically it's true that you cannot alienate a joint tenancy (other than leaseholds) and doing so would break the JT (regardless of what kind of interest you give the other person). Even if you give someone an interest lower than yours it still would break the JT.

So with a JT the ONLY WAY you can involve someone else is with leaseholds.

am I right?

[bananapeanutbutter]

yeah okay so basically it's true that you cannot alienate a joint tenancy (other than leaseholds) and doing so would break the JT (regardless of what kind of interest you give the other person). Even if you give someone an interest lower than yours it still would break the JT.

So with a JT the ONLY WAY you can involve someone else is with leaseholds.

am I right?

I'd have to think the same logic that applies to LE's would then need to apply to easements. However, licenses are revocable so maybe if it's a straight license and doesn't become an Easement By Estoppel then a license is coolio?

But it seems like Joint Tenancies are more like being swingers than an open marriage. You can have a 1 night stand with whoever you want, but you only can commit to your partner for eternity.

[bananapeanutbutter]

What happens if you have multiple co-tenants who all get along fine but 2 can't stand each other and want partition. would only they be partioned or would the whole tenancy have to break up?

[swtlilsoni]

If you have a condition on an executory interest, is it still called an executory interest, or is it called a contingent remainder?

For example, X to Y as long as Y is unmarried, then to Z as long as Z is unmarried

Also, what if the executory interest is subject to another executory interest, then what's it called:

X to Y as long as Y is unmarried, then to Z as long as Z is unmarried, then to P.

[bananapeanutbutter]

yes, once the LE is conveyed O (grantor) has ZERO ownership interest in the property. O owns nothing. only after the death of the grantee will O be able to exercise both ownership and possession.... both A and B would have to re-create the JT (4 unities) again after the LE, otherwise they would hold as tenants in common.

i got you. kind of changes the way i think about life estates in general. thanks!

yeah... if O conveys a lease he can maintain certain leverage on what the lessee can or cannot do, OTOH, if O conveys LE, and absent a covenant, the grantee can do whatevertthefuckhewants with the property (except waste).

This was wrong. A life estate or any tenancy does not sever anything. It's all about who the sublettor is.

[bananapeanutbutter]

If you have a condition on an executory interest, is it still called an executory interest, or is it called a contingent remainder?

For example, X to Y as long as Y is unmarried, then to Z as long as Z is unmarried

Also, what if the executory interest is subject to another executory interest, then what's it called:

X to Y as long as Y is unmarried, then to Z as long as Z is unmarried, then to P.

It's always executory if it cuts short a preceding estate. A fee simple subject to
Executory Limitation. That's the limitation.

[swtlilsoni]

but in both of those examples what would z have?

If you have a condition on an executory interest, is it still called an executory interest, or is it called a contingent remainder?

For example, X to Y as long as Y is unmarried, then to Z as long as Z is unmarried

Also, what if the executory interest is subject to another executory interest, then what's it called:

X to Y as long as Y is unmarried, then to Z as long as Z is unmarried, then to P.

It's always executory if it cuts short a preceding estate. A fee simple subject to
Executory Limitation. That's the limitation.

[bananapeanutbutter]

seems like it's a executory interest to a life estate subject to an executory limitation. i don't think it's vested subject to divestment because the limitation is in the granting clause so it's not a condition subsequent.i say it's a life estate because when 1 person dies they're not married anymore? at least i hope not unless wives get hot again in heaven.

u can have 2 executory interests, why couldn't u? i found it good to never overthink any of this shit. it all makes no sense so just follow the rules with no thinking.

[Danger Zone]

If you have a condition on an executory interest, is it still called an executory interest, or is it called a contingent remainder?

For example, X to Y as long as Y is unmarried, then to Z as long as Z is unmarried

Also, what if the executory interest is subject to another executory interest, then what's it called:

X to Y as long as Y is unmarried, then to Z as long as Z is unmarried, then to P.

Restraints on marriage are null and void in this country.