Talk:Concurrent estate

Attribution

• Some of the material on this page was taken from the Joint tenants page, largely contributed by Taxman, which has since been redirected to this page to maintain consistent use of terminology and so forth. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 22:13, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• I'm going to to put everything from joint tenancy, tenancy in common, joint tenancy with right of survivorship, tenancy by the entirety, and the four unities together in a single "joint tenancy" article. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 01:35, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• This page was created by the merger of information from the original pages on joint tenants, joint tenancy, tenants in common, tenancy in common, joint tenants with rights of survivorship, joint tenancy with right of survivorship, tenants by the entirety, tenancy by the entirety, and the four unities. The authors of those pages are to be credited, and their history can be seen by going to the redirect page. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 17:11, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Vandal

• As the history shows, most of the page was deleted section by section by anonymous user 66.214.109.112, without any explanation. I restored the deletion. I would sincerely appreciate an explanation. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 04:13, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Partition

• Note: some discussion of partition must be added, but that may be better for a separate article. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 05:40, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Questions on terminology

• Would it be possible to use the term "joint tenancy" throughout and indicate in the section on joint tenancy that in some jurisdictions it is called "joint tenancy with right of survivorship". I say this because here (in England and Wales) we just use the term joint tenancy and, we thought of it first 8-). Seriously the term originates in English Law and so perhaps ought to take precedence. It is also much less clumsy. Can you have joint tenancies without rights of survivorship? Francis Davey 16:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Reaching back to my law school days, it seems that the tweo were generally treated as synonymous, and that joint tenants were simply referred to a "J/T". US law schools tend to teach not just the law of the state where the school is located, but general principles applicable to all the US (except perhaps Louisiana, a nominally civil law jurisdiction). By chance I still have my old Property Law casebook, Basic Property Law, by Olin Browder et al. It refers to joint tenancy as simply joint tenancy. I suspect that JTWROS originally came from one approved bit of boilerplate to create J/T, which granted to the grantees as JTWROS as a form of overkill, as if to make sure no one could confuse it with Tenancy in Common. It generally won't make much difference in the US. Zajacd01 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Another point is that the rules on property vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In England and Wales you can only own property in law as joint tenants. Tenancy in common is possible, but only in equity and tenancy by the entireties is non-existant I believe. This might need some ticklish editing. Francis Davey 16:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Even within the States, the laws and terms can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In general, the US states have largely done away with the law/equity distinction in most applications; and as to J/T vs T/C, one looks to the language in the grant; and if the language doesn't specify which is being granted, each state has its preference as to whether "the default setting" is J/T or T/C (and they don't all have the same default setting). For that matter, most US states no longer have tenancy by the entireties; and in some that do, e.g., Indiana, a grant to a husband and wife as J/T is automatically deemed to be a grant to them as tenants by the entireties. In drafting deeds I generally prefer to actually say "as tenants by the entireties," but this sometimes aggravates title companies. *g* Zajacd01 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Likewise, in Victoria, Australia (& probably the rest of Australia) all joint tenancies are "joint tenancies with right of survivorship", a "joint tenancy without the right of survivorship" is (here) a contradiction in terms. Avalon 08:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• I recently looked at a textbook on US property law, and the phrase "joint tenancy" was used throughout, JTWROS was not sued. It really is an ugly acronym and appears to only have currencty in some parts of the US, its unknown throughout the rest of the common-law world (where acronyms are less used anyway). Again, no-one has been able to explain what a joint tenancy *without* right of survivorship might be (there appears to be no US example) so its a redunant bit of surplussage. Would anyone object if I edited this article -- which is supposed to be NPOV not US specific -- and change JTWROS to "joint tenancy" throughout? Francis Davey 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm doing research on Tenancy In Common (TIC), specifically for the state of California. At least three articles I've read so far have made "joint tenancy without right of survivorship" explicitly clear as part of the definition, so I challenge your claim that there is no US example; Google at least suggests otherwise. That said, I'm no expert - getting the facts is actually what I'm here for in the first place. Dfrauzel 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. I am still unhappy with the usage JTWROS because it is ugly and appears not to be used outside the US, or within the US particularly widely if my book on US property law is to be believed. In the common law the dichotomy is between joint tenancies and tenancies in common, a tenancy in common is not a joint tenancy. The essence of a joint tenancy is right of survivorship, hence JTWROS is a common-law nonsense. It may be that the terminology has developed and been adapted in the US, but that's no reason for an encylopoedia article that purports to cover the whole common law world should use it. Francis Davey 08:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review comments

Several months ago, I consolidated two groups of articles into comprehensive articles on these relative concepts, then tweaked and expanded from there. It has occurred to me that these might be on the path to being featured articles, and could benefit from peer review. I present them together because the style and organization is prety much the same for both, so I assume they share the same faults. bd2412 T 23:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup. They share the same faults.

1. Insufficient lead text in one,
2. sections are lopsided. Balance the content in sections and avoid the usage of subheadings as far as possible.
3. Are these specifically US laws?
4. No references
5. No images
6. External links are formatted incorrectly.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rights and Duties Shared by all Cotentants

I would like to suggest the following modifications to this entry. I would be interested in any feedback prior to actually making these changes. My suggestions are in bold for easy identification.

Co-tenants, irrespective of the type of tenancy, share certain rights to the property, except to the extent they have modified these rights through an agreement among themselves:

Furthermore, each co-tenant can independently encumber their own share in the property by taking out a mortgage on that share (although this may effectively convert a tenancy in common to a joint tenancy, as described below); other co-tenants have no obligation to help pay a mortgage that only runs to another tenant's share of the property, and the mortgagee can only foreclose on that share. Bank loans secured by mortgages on individual shares of co-owned property is one of the most rapidly expanding areas in the mortgage lending industry.Andysirkin 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Destruction of a Tenancy in Common

Where any party to a tenancy in common wishes to destroy the joint interest, he or she can do so through a partition of the property - a division of the land into distinctly owned plots if such division is legally permitted based upon zoning and other local land use restrictions or, where such division is not permitted, a forced sale of the property followed by a division of proceeds.

If the parties are unable to agree to a partition, any or all of them may seek the ruling of a court to determine how the land should be divided up. Where subdivision is permitted by local land use law, the court may choose to either physically divide it between the joint owners (partition in kind), leaving each with ownership of a portion of the property representing their share, or order a partition by sale in which the property is sold and the proceeds are distributed to the owners. Where local law does not permit physical division, the court must order a partition by sale.

Each co-owner is entitled to partition as a matter of right, meaning that the court will order a partition at the request of any of the co-owners. The only exception to this general rule is where the co-owners have agreed, either expressly or impliedly, to wave the right of partition. The right may be waived either permanently, for a specific period of time, or under certain conditions.Andysirkin 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional Paragraph

I would also like to suggest the addition of the following or a similar paragraph, perhaps in the opening area of the entry.

Regardless of the legal form of co-ownership, all co-owners consider developing a written agreement describing the terms of their co-ownership. Although each jurisdiction has some statutes and case law defining certain rules applicable to the various co-ownership forms, the scope of these rules is very limited and they are often difficult to apply to real life disputes. This makes dispute resolution difficult, time consuming and expensive in instances where no written agreement exists. Some of the issues that should be covered in a real estate co-ownership agreement are: (i) How are the income and expenses of ownership divided among the co-owners; (ii) How and when is each co-owner entitled to use the property him or herself; (iii) How will decisions related to the property be made and how will the property be managed; (iv) What restrictions (if any) apply to a co-owner’s ability to sell or borrow against his or her share, or to allow a spouse, child or other relative to become an additional co-owner; and (v) What restrictions (if any) apply to a co-owners rights to force a partition or sale of the entire property.Andysirkin 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

a thing is not its name, nor is it the concept of itself

A concurrent estate or co-tenancy is a concept in property law which describes the various ways in which property is owned by more than one person at a time.

No, a concurrent estate or co-tenancy does not describe anything. How about:

• Property law distinguishes various types of concurrent estate or co-tenancy, in which property is owned by more than one person at a time.

This gets the point across without muddling potentially important distinctions between two senses of concept – namely the conventional entity itself and the idea of it – and the use of the idea to describe such estates. —Tamfang (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)