Joint Tenancy--right to use entire property? Forum

[kykiske]

Does a joint tenancy work in the same manner as a tenancy in common in regard to how the property can be used?

For a tenancy in common each each co-tenant has the right to possess and use the entire property, subject to the other co-tenant’s equal right to do likewise. So, if two co-tenants wanted to use 90% of the land, I'd assume they'd have to work out some sort agreement. Or, if they couldn't, one could bring a cause-of-action for partition.

But, does the same logic work for joint tenancy? For example, two joint tenants own 50% of the property. Are they only allowed to use up to 50%, or are they allowed to possess and use the entire property, similar to tenants in common?

Please let me know if my understanding of tenants in common is incorrect.

[stillwater]

Does a joint tenancy work in the same manner as a tenancy in common in regard to how the property can be used?

For a tenancy in common each each co-tenant has the right to possess and use the entire property, subject to the other co-tenant’s equal right to do likewise. So, if two co-tenants wanted to use 90% of the land, I'd assume they'd have to work out some sort agreement. Or, if they couldn't, one could bring a cause-of-action for partition.

But, does the same logic work for joint tenancy? For example, two joint tenants own 50% of the property. Are they only allowed to use up to 50%, or are they allowed to possess and use the entire property, similar to tenants in common?

Please let me know if my understanding of tenants in common is incorrect.

yea, both tenancy-in-common and joint tenancy confer the right to use and enjoy the whole property. the only difference between the two is the right of survivorship. the proper remedy for intractable disagreements would be partition or if one party is actively preventing the full use and enjoyment of the property you could have an ouster situation where the blocked party would be entitled to reasonable rent. It is usually a less awesome remedy because adverse possession S of L starts running and shit.

[thethe]

the tax payments are diff too.

for a JT, all pay an = amount of taxes. TIC it would depend on what they own.

[stillwater]

the tax payments are diff too.

for a JT, all pay an = amount of taxes. TIC it would depend on what they own.

well thats subsidiary because a JT must be made up of equal shares.

[thethe]

the tax payments are diff too.

for a JT, all pay an = amount of taxes. TIC it would depend on what they own.

well thats subsidiary because a JT must be made up of equal shares.

i don't know what subsidiary means, but sounds like it makes sense.

[stillwater]

the tax payments are diff too.

for a JT, all pay an = amount of taxes. TIC it would depend on what they own.

well thats subsidiary because a JT must be made up of equal shares.

i don't know what subsidiary means, but sounds like it makes sense.

I was just saying its a necessary effect of the requirement interests in JTs be equally apportioned.

[thethe]

The basic way to picture it is like this.

All co-tenants have a right to 100% possession of the premises, no matter what kind. They just can't exclude others. It basically just seems like a dumb idea in real life unless they're power rangers and can fit in a giant thingie together.