c Right of survivorship is a key distinction between joint

tenancy and tenants in common

c Tenancy by entirety ± as long as u¶re still married u cant
sever this???
c Joint tenancy ± p 324
c Read about how joint tenancy is moving toards not
necessarily being equal ownership , but based on who
put in what
c Tenancy in common is the preerence now
c Generakl tendency is toward a contract approach : it
matters what the initial intent was ± trying to increase the
flexibility

Riddle v. Harmon, Court of Appeal of CA, 1st District

(1980) Ôuthor: Bram

Ñarties: Ñ is widower of joint tenant, and the DF is the

executrix from the lower court action.

Cause of action/remedy sought: Declaratory judgment for

rights of ownership in land sought on appeal out of dispute
from a quieting of title in lower court.

Ñrocedural History: Trial court ruled in summary judgment

that Ms. Riddle did not unilaterally terminate a joint tenancy by
conveying her interest from herself as joint tenant to herself as
tenant in common. On appeal, judgment is reversed.

ÿacts: The Riddles purchased a parcel of real estate, taking

title as joint tenants. Shortly before her demise, Ms. Riddle
retained an attorney to plan her estate. Ôfter learning that her
land, upon being in joint tenancy, would pass to her husband,
decided to change this possibility of a future interest. Her
lawyer prepared a grant deed whereby Ms. Riddle granted to
herself an undivided one-half interest in the subject property.
The document further stated "The purpose of this Grant Deed
 is to terminate those joint tenancies formerly existing between
the Grantor, Frances Ñ. Riddle, and Jack C. Riddle, her
husband. awyer also prepared a will disposing of Mrs.
Riddle's interest in the property Grant Deed and will executed
12/8/75, and Ms. Riddle died thereafter.

åssue(s): Under property law, may a joint tenant unilaterally

end a joint tenancy when (1) that joint tenant has died, and (2)
then convey that land in a separate document to another party?

Holding: Yes. The court ruled it was time to break out of the
traditions of the old and move into a new era of concurrent
interests, where a joint tenant can end her joint interest in an
estate by herself.

Court's Rationale/Reasoning: Ending a joint tenancy

becomes a lot easier if a person has intent to leave the
relationship (business, personal, or both, as the case may be).
Ôt common law, there were four unities, one of which was
interest, for lack thereof resulted in the interest changing from a
joint tenancy to a tenancy in common. It also ended the
testator's interest in the land, as it would pass to the other joint
tenant at death. 

So, people started getting cute with their land, and found
different ways to terminate the joint tenancy; one possible way
was through a strawman (defined below), but that was ruled
illegal in common law, and earlier on in CÔ law as well (despite
no problems with strawmen being able to create a joint
tenancy). The court here senses there is something wrong
with this picture: they know feoffment was the original way to
pass title to land, but times are changing. The court in this
decision says "out with the old, and in with the new."
(overrules ½
 and common law doctrine in the process)

Rule: One joint tenant may unilaterally sever the joint tenancy
without the use of an intermediary devise.

Did court avoid issues?: o/Ô.

Dicta: Common law doctrine of this two-to-transfer comes from feoffment

ceremony with livery of seisin; one can't enfeoff oneself.
o


 



c ¦
 





c Ô
 




 
 


  




c è


 

 



 !  




 

c [ "    




#
c *  


 
 $
c  





   
 $
c *[ 
c ½ 



 


c £  % 
 


c ÿ


c !


 
  &


 &



 &
$
c [  



   









 
 
c R ¦ [
c ü 
   

&

 
 ' 

 &


( &
 

   

 
c å






&










 

c ! 





&
 

 
c O




 
 
 


 $$
c R 








c R















 

c '
c
 





&



$$$$
c


 




 

c 
c å    
 )
c £



 
 


& 
  



 
 

c !  

   



 




 




c $$$
c