<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> A brother and sister, Bruce and Sharon, acquired as joint tenants a twenty-acre parcel of land called Greenacre. They contributed equally to the purchase price. Several years later, Bruce proposed that they build an apartment development on Greenacre. Sharon rejected the proposal but orally agreed with Bruce that Bruce could go ahead on his own on the northerly half of Greenacre and Sharon could do what she wished with the southerly half of Greenacre. Bruce proceeded to build an apartment development on, and generally developed and improved, the northerly ten acres of Greenacre. Sharon orally permitted the southerly ten acres of Greenacre to be used by the Audubon Society as a nature preserve. Bruce died, leaving his entire estate to his son, Stanley. The will named Sharon as executrix of his will, but she refused to serve.

In an appropriate action to determine the respective interests of Sharon and Stanley in Greenacre, if Sharon is adjudged to be the owner of all of Greenacre, the most likely reason for the judgment will be that
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

	A.	the Statute of Frauds prevents the proof of Sharon's oral agreement.
	B.	Bruce could not unilaterally sever the joint tenancy.
	C.	Sharon's nomination as executrix of Bruce's estate does not prevent her from asserting her claim against Stanley.
	D.	the record title of the joint tenancy in Greenacre can be changed only by a duly recorded instrument.

D?
At least that makes more sense than the rest.  If there is a JTROS and they "agree" to sever, but don't the JTROS remains (not converted to a TIC) and as such his share cannot be devised.  But the oral agreement is tempting.

D

A joint tenant can severe the joint tenancy only by a proper conveyance. If the brother had done that then the sister would have been a tenant in common with the son. Since no conveyance occurred before his death, as a joint tenant the sister had the the right of surivorship and therefore owns the entire property in fee simple.

At least that's how I see it :)

Posted By on 01 Jul 2009 10:28 PM
D

A joint tenant can severe the joint tenancy only by a proper conveyance. If the brother had done that then the sister would have been a tenant in common with the son. Since no conveyance occurred before his death, as a joint tenant the sister had the the right of surivorship and therefore owns the entire property in fee simple.

At least that's how I see it :)

I agree with this reasoning but not the answer, because recording is not tantamount to severance. So I pick "A"

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:204; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]>  

A?  claiming SOF. <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4  enough to take JT -to TIC conveyance out SOF)

C is nonsense, D is wrong b/c recordation only protects against claims by consecutive grantees we left with B vs. A

 

But JT easily can be severed by one of JTs  (by other means like K for sale of his share,for example )

 

A?

Here is a good hypo to practice the mini-essay and to sharpen your knowledge of the law.

At issue is whether Sharon is the owner of the entire estate. The rule of Joint Tenancy governs here. Joint Tenancy is created by the 4 unities of equal interest, instrument, possession, and time. Joint Tenants have an undivided equal interest in the entire property. Where one joint tenant conveys his/her interest, the joint tenancy is terminated. Where co-joint tenenat dies, his/her interest disappears in favor of the rest of the joint tenants.

Sharon has the property in fee simple because Bruce, the co-tenant died, and his interest disappeared in favor of Sharon.

Bruce's son may argue that Sharon severed the tenancy when she made an oral agreement to allow the Audubon to develop Greenacre... however, Sharon will argue that she did not convey a deed to the Society because an oral agreement does not comply with the Statute of Frauds. The statute of Frauds requires that a propery conveyance be in writing, signed by the parties, and describe the property.

ANSWER: A because it is the only answer that comes close to the reasoniing.

Why is B wrong? B is wrong because according to our rule... Bruce could unilaterally shatter the JT. He does not need Sharon's permission to convey.

Why is C wrong? Where do you see any rule like that in your propery outline?... You don't. So don't fool with it.

Why is D wrong? Our rule said convey. It did not say anything about duly recorded instruments as the only valid method to convey. Recorded instruments are useful to BFPs because someone has an unrecorded conveyance.

With the MBE... for some questions... practice writing the rule quickly. Then do some very quick reasoning. Then pick the answer. That way... it will give you an idea of why you are getting it wrong or why you are getting it right.