162 Cal. Rptr. 530
Mr. and Mrs. Riddle purchased a parcel of real estate, taking title as joint tenants.1 Several months before her death, Mrs. Riddle retained an attorney to plan her estate.2 After reviewing pertinent documents, he advised her that the property was held in joint tenancy and that, upon her death, the property would pass to her husband.3
Distressed upon learning this, she requested that the joint tenancy be terminated so that she could dispose of her interest by will.4 As a result, the attorney prepared a grant deed whereby Mrs. Riddle granted to herself an undivided one-half interest in the subject property.5 The document also provided that “The purpose of this Grant Deed is to terminate those joint tenancies formerly existing between the Grantor, Frances P. Riddle, and Jack C. Riddle, her husband. ...”6 He also prepared a will disposing of Mrs. Riddle’s interest in the property.7 Both the grant deed and will were executed on December 8, 1975.8 Mrs. Riddle died 20 days later.9
The trial court refused to sanction her plan to sever the joint tenancy and quieted title to the property in her husband.10 The executrix of the will of Frances Riddle appeals from that judgment.11
Whether Frances Riddle unilaterally terminated a joint tenancy by conveying her interest from herself as joint tenant to herself as tenant in common?12
The four unities of interest, time, title, and possession are essential to the creation and continued existence of a joint tenancy estate.13 Destruction of any unity converts the estate to a tenancy in common and extinguishes the right of survivorship, which is merely an expectancy contingent on survival and maintenance of the unities. Each joint tenant holds an indisputable unilateral power to convey her separate interest by gift or sale without the knowledge or consent of the other tenant, thereby severing the joint tenancy.14 Although common-law conveyancing required distinct grantor and grantee and therefore a strawman intermediary to terminate a joint tenancy, that requirement is an obsolete remnant of the livery-of-seisin ceremony.15 California law therefore permits a joint tenant to sever directly by conveying her interest to herself as tenant in common.16
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that Mrs. Riddle took the necessary steps to sever the joint tenancy.17 Mr. and Mrs. Riddle purchased a parcel of real estate, taking title as joint tenants. Several months before her death, Mrs. Riddle retained an attorney to plan her estate. After reviewing pertinent documents, he advised her that the property was held in joint tenancy and that, upon her death, the property would pass to her husband.
Distressed upon learning this, she requested that the joint tenancy be terminated so that she could dispose of her interest by will. As a result, the attorney prepared a grant deed whereby Mrs. Riddle granted to herself an undivided one-half interest in the subject property. The document also provided that the purpose of this Grant Deed is to terminate those joint tenancies formerly existing between the Grantor, Frances P. Riddle, and Jack C. Riddle, her husband.18 He also prepared a will disposing of Mrs. Riddle’s interest in the property. Both the grant deed and will were executed on December 8, 1975. Mrs. Riddle died 20 days later.
The trial court refused to sanction her plan to sever the joint tenancy and quieted title to the property in her husband. The executrix of the will of Frances Riddle appeals from that judgment. Mrs. Riddle’s grant deed to herself explicitly stated the purpose to terminate the joint tenancies and conveyed an undivided one-half interest to herself, thereby destroying the unities of title and interest.19 This unilateral action terminated the right of survivorship without need for an intermediary, achieving directly what the strawman method approved in prior cases would have accomplished indirectly.20
Frances Riddle successfully terminated the joint tenancy by her unilateral conveyance to herself as tenant in common, and the trial court’s judgment quieting title in the widower must therefore be reversed.21