Joint tenancy is a type of joint ownership of property in the field of property law, where each owner has an undivided interest in the property. This type of ownership creates a right of survivorship, which means that when one owner dies, the other owners absorb the deceased owner's interest.
For example, if A and B own a house as joint tenants, both have undivided ownership of the property, and the full right to occupy and use all of it. If A dies, B gets sole ownership of the house, because of the right of survivorship. This is the main difference between a joint tenancy and a tenancy in common.
Joint tenancies are generally disfavored by courts, who would prefer to find a property is owned via the latter method. It should also be noted that when it comes to joint tenancy, courts usually do not intervene much and prefer to adopt a hands-off approach, especially during the life of the tenancy.
There are 4 units of joint tenancy (Four conditions that are required in order for there to be a formation of a joint tenancy): Time, Title, Interest, Possession. If any of these conditions are not satisfied or are altered so that they no longer exist, then the joint tenancy is extinguished.
- Unity of interest: The interest of each owner is equal.
- Unity of time: The interest of the owners is acquired at the same time.
- Unity of possession: The owners have the right of survivorship.
- Unity of title: The document must specify a joint tenancy vesting.
- If a vesting is not specified, it is presumed to be a tenancy in common.
The case of Harms v. Sprague illustrates the requirements of joint tenancy, as well as the importance of defining exactly which type of joint ownership scheme is at play in a case or controversy. In this case, William Harms (plaintiff) and his brother, John Harms, owned property as joint tenants. Charles Sprague (defendant) purchased property nearby, and John Harms allowed Sprague to use his joint tenancy interest as collateral for the balance due on the mortgage for that purchase. John then died, leaving his entire estate to Sprague. William sued to quiet title in the property formerly owned jointly by him and his brother. Sprague filed a counterclaim, alleging that he owned the property as a tenancy in common with William, subject to a mortgage lien on his interest. The form of ownership was important in this case because, if the original agreement between the brothers was a joint tenancy, then John Harms’ (the deceased brother) interest in the property would have been extinguished upon his use of the property as collateral and the subsequent lien placed on the property. Thus, the living brother would hold full ownership over the property. However, if the joint ownership scheme were a tenancy in common, then John’s property interest would not be extinguished due to the lien.
The Court ruled that since the original joint ownership between the two brothers was a joint tenancy arrangement, the conveyance of title by the deceased brother and subsequent lien placed upon the property meant that the joint tenancy agreement was broken since the original co-owners (brothers) no longer possessed equal interest in the property. John (the deceased brother) was still a co-owner, but not sufficient to maintain joint tenancy.
[Last updated in June of 2023 by Iain Richards with the Wex Definitions Team]