I haven't researched the question in California, but logically the answer is yes, there is a severance, whether the trust is revocable or irrevocable. The trust is a separate entity from its grantor.
Probably not. In theory a deed to ones self is a nullity. A court might accept it as an expression of your intent, but I wouldn't count on it. Better to use a deed to a "straw man" and another deed back to you.
Could you explain what you mean where a contract of sale is signed by only one of joint tenants, and unity of title is thus broken, the parties are no longer on equal footing? Why would they not be considered tenants in common? Is there any way the contract could be enforceable? Also, I don't understand what would happen when both joint tenants sign the contract of sale, and severance is not broken. Does this mean that they are under the same obligation to sell the property as joint tenants? Or does the outside get an equal share in the joint tenancy between the original parties?
In the case in which one of the two Jt/Ts signs a contract of sale, one of them has conveyed away his or her "equitable title" and the other has not. They now have different types or qualities of title and hence don't have "unity of title" any more. ("Unity of title" means their interests are identical.) So their Jt/T is severed and becomes a T/C. The contract is perfectly enforceable against the one who signed it, but all he or she can convey is a 50% interest as a T/C. In the case in which both Jt/Ts sign the contract, both have conveyed away their "equitable title" but both still have legal title. Their interests are exactly identical. Hence, they still have unity of title and the Jt/T remains in effect. They are both under the same obligation to sell the property under the contract. If one of them dies before the closing, the other will hold title to 100% of the property (as the surviving joint tenant) and will be obligated to convey the full title to the property to the contract purchaser at the closing.
Prof. Dale, Let’s suppose A, B, and C are given a JTWROS. A then conveys his interest to C, his cotenant. Had A conveyed his interest to D, I understand that would sever A’s JT as your video states (D is an “outsider”). But what becomes of the JT when interest is conveyed inter vivos within the JT, such as A to C? Thank you!
There is very scant authority for the question you raised, so one can't be entirely certain of the answer. In my opinion, this situation should be treated in the same way as a conveyance by one of the joint tenants to an outsider. The reason is that, after the conveyance, C has a 1/3 interest with all 4 unities with B, and a 1/3 interest in which C does not have unity of time and title with B. So C should end up with 1/3 as a tenancy in common, and 1/3 as a joint tenant with right of survivorship with B.
What if one person on a dual joint tenant deed is on the loan and the other person who is not on the loan attempts to switch from (joint tenants) to (tenants in common)? Is that legal? In California
Robert - either party to a joint tenancy can always convert it into a tenancy in common. It doesn't matter whether one of the parties is liable on a loan, or has executed a deed of trust on his or her interest, or not. In California the mere act of one joint tenant executing a deed of trust on his or her interest to a lender will not sever the joint tenancy,, and won't convert it into a tenancy in common. However, either party can always cause a severance, without the consent of the other party, simply by executing a deed to a "straw man" or probably by filing in the public records a declaration of intent to convert the joint tenancy in common.
Since you only own a 50% share, that's all you have to sell. If you find a buyer and execute a deed, the right of survivorship will disappear and the buyer will hold a 50% share as a tenant in common. However, as a practical matter it may be difficult to find someone who wants to buy a half interest in a parcel of real estate. It's easier if the parcel is large and can be physically divided, because the buyer can go to court and have the court physically split the property.
Technically, there's no such thing as a joint tenancy without a right of survivorship; the drafter has made a mistake and has created an ambiguity. So a court construing the deed or will has two choices: (1) treating it as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship (on the ground that even though the parties left out the "right of survivorship: language, they must have intended to create a Jt/T WROS), or (2) treating it as a tenancy in common (on the ground that this is the default form of cotenancy, and therefore is what should be deemed to exist when there's an ambiguity in the original conveyance). You can find case authority for both of of these results.
@@profdalespropertyvideos185 yeay somebody smart ok that was my question then i have been studying al l the the laws of deeds and due influence breach of contract elderly laws ect.. and embezzlement subject extra hard as my son definitely embezzled my ded a car and bank account but i dont know if a covid jail death sentence is an option so i think im going to try and severe joint ten to a tenants in common then put in a llc then irevocable trust and get control of my deed back legally is that theory not valid?
@@joeybez5464 Joey - If I understand your situation correctly, you presently own land in a joint tenancy with right of survivorship with your son. If that is the case, you can certainly sever the joint tenancy, thereby converting it into a tenancy in common. However, you will then own only a 50% interest in the property and your son will own the other 50% interest. You can protect your half interest by putting it in an LLC, but you will have no control over the other half interest belonging to your son. If there is a basis for believing that your son acquired his interest in the land wrongfully or illegally, there are some legal theories that might allow you to recover a 100% ownership interest. I strongly recommend that you consult with an experienced local lawyer to explore this possibility.
if i put property in a r trust the grantee of trust has control to make changes and the whole property is able to be put in trust without consent of co owner except giving him a copy and motorising that i gave him a copy and recording everything at recorders office im hoping wishfully thinking lawyers want up to 50 percent of home or $350 hr and my son took my whole bank account and skipped town but new laws are being configured to unilateral y remove legally or a lien on his half and district attorney will evaluate my case now but embezzlement is a huge crime if i won yes i get my property back but i dont know about jail for him im thnking on hiring an advocate to help file stuff
I am in a threeperson joint tenancy the husband and wife did that to help me secure a property, they are on the loan I live there by myself and I pay the mortgage myself. Can I put the title or deed in my name if we all agree to that, and if so how do I go about that?
Simply have the other two parties execute and record deeds conveying their one-third interests to you. Then you will hold 100% interest in the property. The deeds they execute can either be quitclaim or warranty deeds; it really doesn't matter.
However, if the mortgage loan is still outstanding, and is on the standard Fannie Mae-Freddie-Mac form, the deeds may violate the due-on-sale clause in the mortgage unless you get the consent of the holder of the mortgage. You should discuss this with the mortgage holder or servicer.
thanks for xplain very good
Very helpful! Thank you.
Does transfer of property into a California Revocable Living Trust create Severance?
Does it require transfer to a Irrevocable Trust?
I haven't researched the question in California, but logically the answer is yes, there is a severance, whether the trust is revocable or irrevocable. The trust is a separate entity from its grantor.
Can I execute a Quit Claim Deed to myself to sever the Joint Tenancy on the Warranty Deed I have with my exhusband?
Probably not. In theory a deed to ones self is a nullity. A court might accept it as an expression of your intent, but I wouldn't count on it. Better to use a deed to a "straw man" and another deed back to you.
Could you explain what you mean where a contract of sale is signed by only one of joint tenants, and unity of title is thus broken, the parties are no longer on equal footing? Why would they not be considered tenants in common? Is there any way the contract could be enforceable? Also, I don't understand what would happen when both joint tenants sign the contract of sale, and severance is not broken. Does this mean that they are under the same obligation to sell the property as joint tenants? Or does the outside get an equal share in the joint tenancy between the original parties?
In the case in which one of the two Jt/Ts signs a contract of sale, one of them has conveyed away his or her "equitable title" and the other has not. They now have different types or qualities of title and hence don't have "unity of title" any more. ("Unity of title" means their interests are identical.) So their Jt/T is severed and becomes a T/C. The contract is perfectly enforceable against the one who signed it, but all he or she can convey is a 50% interest as a T/C.
In the case in which both Jt/Ts sign the contract, both have conveyed away their "equitable title" but both still have legal title. Their interests are exactly identical. Hence, they still have unity of title and the Jt/T remains in effect. They are both under the same obligation to sell the property under the contract. If one of them dies before the closing, the other will hold title to 100% of the property (as the surviving joint tenant) and will be obligated to convey the full title to the property to the contract purchaser at the closing.
@@fredmertzful Thank you!
ty
Prof. Dale,
Let’s suppose A, B, and C are given a JTWROS. A then conveys his interest to C, his cotenant. Had A conveyed his interest to D, I understand that would sever A’s JT as your video states (D is an “outsider”). But what becomes of the JT when interest is conveyed inter vivos within the JT, such as A to C? Thank you!
There is very scant authority for the question you raised, so one can't be entirely certain of the answer. In my opinion, this situation should be treated in the same way as a conveyance by one of the joint tenants to an outsider. The reason is that, after the conveyance, C has a 1/3 interest with all 4 unities with B, and a 1/3 interest in which C does not have unity of time and title with B. So C should end up with 1/3 as a tenancy in common, and 1/3 as a joint tenant with right of survivorship with B.
Thank you!
What if one person on a dual joint tenant deed is on the loan and the other person who is not on the loan attempts to switch from (joint tenants) to (tenants in common)? Is that legal? In California
Robert - either party to a joint tenancy can always convert it into a tenancy in common. It doesn't matter whether one of the parties is liable on a loan, or has executed a deed of trust on his or her interest, or not. In California the mere act of one joint tenant executing a deed of trust on his or her interest to a lender will not sever the joint tenancy,, and won't convert it into a tenancy in common. However, either party can always cause a severance, without the consent of the other party, simply by executing a deed to a "straw man" or probably by filing in the public records a declaration of intent to convert the joint tenancy in common.
How do I get out of joint tenancy with SURVIVORSHIP, if my cousin does not want to sell the property, but I want out 100%
Since you only own a 50% share, that's all you have to sell. If you find a buyer and execute a deed, the right of survivorship will disappear and the buyer will hold a 50% share as a tenant in common. However, as a practical matter it may be difficult to find someone who wants to buy a half interest in a parcel of real estate. It's easier if the parcel is large and can be physically divided, because the buyer can go to court and have the court physically split the property.
what about joint tenants and no mention of rights of survival?
Technically, there's no such thing as a joint tenancy without a right of survivorship; the drafter has made a mistake and has created an ambiguity. So a court construing the deed or will has two choices: (1) treating it as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship (on the ground that even though the parties left out the "right of survivorship: language, they must have intended to create a Jt/T WROS), or (2) treating it as a tenancy in common (on the ground that this is the default form of cotenancy, and therefore is what should be deemed to exist when there's an ambiguity in the original conveyance). You can find case authority for both of of these results.
@@profdalespropertyvideos185 yeay somebody smart ok that was my question then
i have been studying al l the the laws of deeds and due influence breach of contract elderly laws ect.. and embezzlement subject extra hard as my son definitely embezzled my ded a car and bank account but i dont know if a covid jail death sentence is an option so i think im going to try and severe joint ten to a tenants in common then put in a llc then irevocable trust and get control of my deed back legally is that theory not valid?
@@joeybez5464 Joey - If I understand your situation correctly, you presently own land in a joint tenancy with right of survivorship with your son. If that is the case, you can certainly sever the joint tenancy, thereby converting it into a tenancy in common. However, you will then own only a 50% interest in the property and your son will own the other 50% interest. You can protect your half interest by putting it in an LLC, but you will have no control over the other half interest belonging to your son.
If there is a basis for believing that your son acquired his interest in the land wrongfully or illegally, there are some legal theories that might allow you to recover a 100% ownership interest. I strongly recommend that you consult with an experienced local lawyer to explore this possibility.
if i put property in a r trust the grantee of trust has control to make changes and the whole property is able to be put in trust without consent of co owner except giving him a copy and motorising that i gave him a copy and recording everything at recorders office im hoping wishfully thinking lawyers want up to 50 percent of home or $350 hr and my son took my whole bank account and skipped town but new laws are being configured to unilateral y remove legally or a lien on his half and district attorney will evaluate my case now but embezzlement is a huge crime if i won yes i get my property back but i dont know about jail for him im thnking on hiring an advocate to help file stuff
I am in a threeperson joint tenancy the husband and wife did that to help me secure a property, they are on the loan I live there by myself and I pay the mortgage myself. Can I put the title or deed in my name if we all agree to that, and if so how do I go about that?
Simply have the other two parties execute and record deeds conveying their one-third interests to you. Then you will hold 100% interest in the property. The deeds they execute can either be quitclaim or warranty deeds; it really doesn't matter.
However, if the mortgage loan is still outstanding, and is on the standard Fannie Mae-Freddie-Mac form, the deeds may violate the due-on-sale clause in the mortgage unless you get the consent of the holder of the mortgage. You should discuss this with the mortgage holder or servicer.
@@profdalespropertyvideos185 thank you.
@@profdalespropertyvideos185 thanks