Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

CASE STUDY #1 A, B, and C own land as joint tenants. C conveys his third to D and dies shortly after.

A and B object, claiming that the conveyance is not valid without their approval. A and B further claim that the conveyance, if legal, makes D a joint tenant also. The case is taken to court. What is the result? In this case, D is not a party to the joint tenancy agreement. For a tenancy agreement to exist, A and B would have to default on the original contract agreement and sign a new joint tenancy agreement with D. To create a joint tenancy, four (4) unities must be present. They are: Unity of time Unity of title Unity of interest Unity of possession

Unity of Time Unity of time means that all parties to the joint tenancy agreement must sign the agreement at the same time. Each joint tenant must acquire his or her ownership interest at the same time. Once a joint tenancy is formed, it is not possible to add new joint tenants later unless an entirely new joint tenancy is formed among the existing co-owners and the new co-owner. Unity of Title Unity of title means that all parties interest in the agreement must be from the same source, that is, the same deed or will. Unity of Interest Unity of interest means that the joint tenants own one interest together and each joint tenant has exactly the same right in that interest. Unity of Possession Unity of possession means that the joint tenants must enjoy the same undivided possession of the whole property. All joint tenants have the use of the entire property, and no individual owns a particular portion of it. Taking these four (4) unities in consideration, the court would conclude that D is not a party to the joint tenancy agreement. However, if the conveyance is legal, the transfer of C's interest will sever the joint tenancy and the oncoming party, D, will hold as tenant in common with the remaining tenants, A and B. The tenancy between A and B remains unaltered.

CASE STUDY #2 A and B rent a building from W to establish a restaurant and a tavern on a one-year lease. They add a storage room in the rear and arrange for the installation of a bar, kitchen equipment, booths, and other miscellaneous items, all of which are attached to the building. The business is unusually successful, and A and B decide to move to larger quarters at the end of the year. Upon moving, they start to remove the improvements. W objects and threatens to sue, saying that all improvements become property of the landlord unless otherwise agreed and no such agreement was reached. What is the result? It is not uncommon for disputes to arise when tenants install permanent fixtures on the rented property. The most common reason is that the removal of fixtures usually results in damage to the property. When an object that was once personal property is attached to real property so as to become part of the real estate, it called a fixture and, as a rule, a fixture is the property of the landowner. Ordinarily, when an object that was once person property is attached to land by virtue of its being embedded in the land or affixed to the land by means of cement, nails, bolts, and so on, it becomes real estate when they become a part of the building. In the case under review, A and B have added a storage room, installed bar, kitchen equipment, booths and other miscellaneous items and so have become real estate and the property of W. Therefore, unless otherwise agreed, all improvements that A and B, the lessees, made to the property become the property of W, the lessor. Without Ws prior written consent, A and B shall not make any alterations or improvements to the premises, therefore the court would rule in Ws favour. If W has a change of heart and allows A and B to remove the fixtures, they must do so without damaging the property and if there is any damage, they must restore the property to its original condition.