nickb285 wrote:Couple questions on joint tenancies/adverse possession. Scenario: O grants A, an adult, and B, a minor child, a joint tenancy in Blackacre on condition that neither ever opens a tavern.
1. Does the fact that B is a minor have any bearing on his rights/responsibilities as a joint tenant? E.g. does A automatically hold B's interest as a trustee?
2. If A builds a tavern while B is still a minor, is it only A's interest that reverts to O? Or would O have to re-convey since there would no longer be the four unities?
3. If C adversely possesses the land while B is still a minor, does B still have any rights to the land, or alternatively, recourse against A?
4. Is O's prohibition on taverns treated as a real covenant, which would burden C and thus give O reverter if C ever opens a tavern, or is it merely a future interest that evaporates upon C's successful adverse possession?
Sorry if these are obvious; got this question on a practice exam and my brain kind of broke. Thanks in advance.
1) My instinct is no. But we didn't talk about minors at all.
2) The language makes it a fee simple subject to condition subsequent. That means that O has a right of entry. So nothing will automatically happen. But if O does decide to assert rights it seems like they would get the whole thing given the language "neither". That's why they'd have to reconvey, not any other reason. But re the unities all that would do is destroy the joint tenancy, not A's interest. If for some reason A still had the interest it wouldn't need to be reconveyed but it would be a tenancy in common instead. It would only need to be reconveyed in someway if it was necessary to recreate joint tenancy.
3) Again, probably not in property law. But we didn't cover minors so take with a grain of salt. I think the assumption would be that B either has a guardian taking care of it or that if A is B's guardian they are other conveyance forms taht could guard B's interest (like giving B a remainder of a life estate). This is just me guessing though.
4) Okay I don't have a real answer to this. But, I think that because it matches the form for subj. to condition subsequent it's not a covenant, but a legit future interest. A covenant wouldn't give a reversion FWIW. You could just sue for enforcement and may not win. Now the question as to what happens to a right of entry after adverse possession.... I don't actually know. My instinct would be that you can only adversely possess what someone possesses: in this case the present interest. So my guess is the grantor can exercise the right of entry if C opens a tavern. But it's also possible a court would just see this as too much of a restraint on alienation and kill it. I have no idea though tbh.
