The tone of his voice, the speed and pictures gave me the ability to stay focused and receive a lot of information in a short period of time. This was very helpful 🙂
I usually have questions when I am confused about a problem in my book. This time I have a different but albeit related question. At 9:12 you said that a bank could not take the house if one of the spouse is in debt but the other spouse did not consent to it. But how come we see on the news constantly (especially in today's economy) about foreclosures and people losing their houses. Can you "not" lose your house simply by having a tenancy by entirety and this tenancy is something that people do not know about? Or is there more law beyond this that is not covered here.
At 9:08 it states that, “[…] the property is protected from the debt of the other spouse.” Thus, these words are not referring to joint debt but instead the debt which is specific to only one spouse (i.e. individual debt). If the debt is specific to only one spouse, then a creditor cannot take (a.k.a. “look to”) the real property which is held by a tenancy by the entirety. Note however that it is uncommon for a married couple to have individual debts; they usually have joint debt. Further, the majority of foreclosures involve lienholders (or creditors) whose loans are secured by real property. As it pertains to a married couple, this means that both spouses had to authorize a lien (i.e. each spouse gives consent for the bank to take the real property if there is a default) before the lienholder would give them a loan to buy the real property. To reiterate, married couples normally have joint debt instead of individual debt, and since no bank would give a loan to buy real property without the power to foreclose in the event of a default, the frequency of foreclosure will be unaffected by the tenancy by the entirety; especially since the tenancy by the entirety only exists in less than half of the states.
I have a question here , the lake example in the video says that if the cotenant cannot use the lake it will not create a joint tenant but a tenancy in common, however, a tenancy in common also requires the right to use the whole. So how come?
Thank you for your question. At minute 4:08, it states that other concurrent estates can alter the right to use the whole except for the joint tenancy because of the unity of possession. Therefore, while the tenancy in common by default has the right to use the whole, it can still be altered so that it is not included. The language in the lake example that you refer to at minute 4:16 restricts the right to use the whole which is acceptable for a tenancy in common but not acceptable for a joint tenancy.
This is genius. You just summed up about 2 hours of bar lectures in about 15 minutes. Bravo!
The tone of his voice, the speed and pictures gave me the ability to stay focused and receive a lot of information in a short period of time. This was very helpful 🙂
You and me both
Concise and clear! Nice video! Love from OUC❤❤❤
Wow! You make property law so easy! I really needed this to get all the concepts down for the upcoming bar exam!! Thank you!!
+Disha Kumar Thank you! Good luck with your bar studies.
Thank you!!!! So simple and concise. A national treasure!🥰
This is a great video! Thank you so much for producing it. Very helpful.
I have been struggling with this concept in Real Estate class... This really helped..
This is great! Thank you!
Great video. This makes it so much easier to understand. Thank you!
These videos are great!! Thank you so much for posting them! :)
Thanks for all your great videos !!
these videos are fantastic. life savers!!
Thank you for all your videos and explanations. They are great help and very clear!
+Ramy Hijazi Thank you for the high compliment. You are very welcome!
Man you're good...very simple and plainly explained...wow...
Great. Thank you
please post more!!!!
Wow this was amazing! I am subbing
honestly, Property is by far my worst subject as I am using Barbri and their CEO is fucking garbage at lecturing. These videos are life savers.
I usually have questions when I am confused about a problem in my book. This time I have a different but albeit related question. At 9:12 you said that a bank could not take the house if one of the spouse is in debt but the other spouse did not consent to it. But how come we see on the news constantly (especially in today's economy) about foreclosures and people losing their houses. Can you "not" lose your house simply by having a tenancy by entirety and this tenancy is something that people do not know about? Or is there more law beyond this that is not covered here.
At 9:08 it states that, “[…] the property is protected from the debt of the other spouse.” Thus, these words are not referring to joint debt but instead the debt which is specific to only one spouse (i.e. individual debt). If the debt is specific to only one spouse, then a creditor cannot take (a.k.a. “look to”) the real property which is held by a tenancy by the entirety. Note however that it is uncommon for a married couple to have individual debts; they usually have joint debt.
Further, the majority of foreclosures involve lienholders (or creditors) whose loans are secured by real property. As it pertains to a married couple, this means that both spouses had to authorize a lien (i.e. each spouse gives consent
for the bank to take the real property if there is a default) before the lienholder would give them a loan to buy the real property.
To reiterate, married couples normally have joint debt instead of individual debt, and since no bank would give a loan to buy real property without the power to foreclose in the event of a default, the frequency of foreclosure will be unaffected by the tenancy by the entirety; especially since the tenancy by the entirety only exists in less than half of
the states.
I have a question here , the lake example in the video says that if the cotenant cannot use the lake it will not create a joint tenant but a tenancy in common, however, a tenancy in common also requires the right to use the whole. So how come?
Thank you for your question. At minute 4:08, it states that other concurrent estates can alter the right to use the whole except for the joint tenancy because of the unity of possession. Therefore, while the tenancy in common by default has the right to use the whole, it can still be altered so that it is not included. The language in the lake example that you refer to at minute 4:16 restricts the right to use the whole which is acceptable for a tenancy in common but not acceptable for a joint tenancy.