Severance of Joint Tenancies Flashcards
(14 cards)
Under LPA 1925, s 36(2), a legal joint tenancy may be severed:
A. Never—legal JTs cannot be severed at law
B. By registered notice at Land Registry
C. Automatically on death
D. By mutual agreement only
A. Never—legal JTs cannot be severed at law
Explanation: Section 36(2) provides that legal joint tenancies are indivisible; only equitable interests can be severed
Which of the following is not one of the three equitable severance methods?
A. Notice in writing
B. Automatic severance on death
C. Unilateral act operating on one’s share
D. Mutual agreement or course of dealing
B. Automatic severance on death
Explanation: Severance must occur before death by notice, unilateral act (e.g., sale, lease, bankruptcy), or mutual agreement/course of dealing
A valid notice in writing to sever an equitable joint tenancy must:
A. Be witnessed and registered
B. Specify unequal shares
C. Show an unequivocal and irrevocable intention to sever immediately
D. Be filed at HM Land Registry
C. Show an unequivocal and irrevocable intention to sever immediately
Explanation: Notice need not follow any form or be witnessed, but must clearly intend immediate severance
Which unilateral act will sever an equitable joint tenancy under Williams v Hensman?
A. Granting a licence to occupy
B. Making a will disposing one’s share
C. Exercising a right of first refusal
D. Granting a mortgage over one’s share
D. Granting a mortgage over one’s share
Explanation: Sale, lease or mortgage by one joint tenant severs their share; bankruptcy likewise
Anna signs and serves a clear written notice on Ben stating “I hereby sever our joint tenancy effective today.” That notice:
A. Needs court approval to sever
B. Validly severs Anna’s equitable share
C. Creates a tenancy in common only if Ben consents
D. Is void without registration
B. Validly severs Anna’s equitable share
Explanation: Written notice showing irrevocable intent and served on co-owners effects severance
Charlie sells his equitable share to Diane by deed. Prior to death of any tenant, this act:
A. Converts the entire JT into a TIC among remaining JTs
B. Severance only applies on bankruptcy
C. Severes Charlie’s share into a tenancy in common with Diane
D. Has no effect unless notice is given
C. Severes Charlie’s share into a tenancy in common with Diane
Explanation: A unilateral alienation (sale) of one’s share severs just that share; purchaser holds as TIC
Ellie and Frank orally agree to treat their shares separately and split proceeds equally. That agreement:
A. Must be in writing to sever
B. Cannot sever without notice
C. Severs only upon court order
D. Validly severs by mutual agreement
D. Validly severs by mutual agreement
Explanation: Mutual agreement—express or implied—to sever effects severance
Grace suffers bankruptcy. Grace’s interest in the joint tenancy is then:
A. Unaffected until her death
B. Separated and held as a TIC between her trustee and the remaining JTs
C. Passed automatically by survivorship
D. Converted into a legal lease
B. Separated and held as a TIC between her trustee and the remaining JTs
Explanation: Bankruptcy of a JT severs their equitable share, which vests in the trustee in bankruptcy as TIC
Heather serves notice to sever but it is delivered to Ivan’s old address and never read. The tenancy is:
A. Unsevered (service failed)
B. Severed because service to last known address suffices
C. Severed only if later registered
D. Unaffected until mutual consent
B. Severed because service to last known address suffices
Explanation: Service by post to last known address, once delivered, is effective even if unread
Jake and Kim hold as four JTs. Jake mortgages his share without informing Kim. That mortgage:
A. Lapses on Jake’s death
B. Severs Jake’s share into a TIC, with the mortgagee as co-owner
C. Converts the whole JT into a leasehold
D. Fails without Kim’s consent
B. Severs Jake’s share into a TIC, with the mortgagee as co-owner
Explanation: A mortgage is a unilateral act on one’s share, severing only that share
Lucy and Mark have a course of dealing: each sells their share to the other alternately over years. This conduct:
A. Does not affect the joint tenancy
B. Severs by mutual agreement only
C. Severs by course of dealing (mutual conduct)
D. Requires written confirmation
C. Severs by course of dealing (mutual conduct)
Explanation: A “course of dealing” treating shares as separate effects severance under Williams v Hensman
Nick, Olivia, Paul, and Quinn hold as JTs. Olivia and Paul both sever by notice; Nick dies before Paul. On Nick’s death, ownership is held:
A. As JTs among all four
B. As TIC: Olivia, Paul, Quinn (unsevered) and Nick’s estate
C. As TIC among Olivia and Paul only
D. All as TIC among Olivia, Paul, Quinn and Nick’s estate
D. All as TIC among Olivia, Paul, Quinn and Nick’s estate
Explanation: Each written severance converts each share into TIC; all four (and Nick’s estate after death) hold as tenants in common
Carl and Dana agree verbally to sever their joint tenancy but Dana dies before giving written notice. On Dana’s death, Carl’s interest is:
A. 100 % by survivorship
B. 50 % only, with Dana’s share passing under her will
C. 0 % (estate holds all)
D. 100 % only after probate
A. 100 % by survivorship
Explanation: Severance must occur before death; verbal agreement alone is insufficient, so survivorship applies
In Dunbabin v Dunbabin, two spouses made identical mirror wills leaving their shares to each other. The court found this conduct:
A. Ineffective—mirror wills cannot sever
B. A course of dealing indicating severance by mutual conduct
C. A unilateral act by each
D. A valid notice in writing to sever
B. A course of dealing indicating severance by mutual conduct
Explanation: The mirror wills created a “course of dealing” showing an intention to treat shares separately, effecting severance
