Also known as: unity of interest · unity of ownership · four unities · joint tenancy unity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A condition in which the same owner holds title to both the dominant and servient estates. The condition extinguishes an easement appurtenant to the extent the owner can make the same uses by virtue of fee ownership alone.
A condition in which the same owner holds title to both the dominant and servient estates. The condition extinguishes an easement appurtenant to the extent the owner can make the same uses by virtue of fee ownership alone.
Green Valley Farm owned crop fields served by a recorded irrigation easement across neighboring pasture. Green Valley later purchased the pasture in fee simple and began routing water as owner. Green Valley then sold the pasture to Rivera. Rivera takes the pasture free of the easement because the prior unity of ownership extinguished it.
A factor in corporate veil-piercing analysis showing that the corporation and its controlling shareholder function as a single entity. The factor is shown by commingling of funds, failure to observe formalities, undercapitalization, and treatment of corporate assets as personal assets.
Vivienne formed Apex Advisory LLC with one thousand dollars and deposited Ralph's two-hundred-thousand-dollar investment into a single account she used for personal mortgage payments and vacations. She transferred remaining client funds to her personal brokerage account before the fund collapsed. Ralph sues Vivienne personally after Apex has no assets. The unity of interest shown by commingling allows the court to disregard the LLC and reach Vivienne's assets.
A factor in corporate veil-piercing analysis showing that the corporation and its controlling shareholder function as a single entity. The factor is shown by commingling of funds, failure to observe formalities, undercapitalization, and treatment of corporate assets as personal assets.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Brook Firm held an easement appurtenant to a shared driveway that allowed designation of reserved parking spaces on the neighboring parcel. Brook Firm purchased the neighboring parcel in fee simple and used the spaces as owner. Brook Firm later sold the parcel to Nova Legal. Nova Legal takes the parcel free of the parking burden because the prior unity extinguished the appurtenant easement.
Yes. The rule focuses on whether the owner could make the authorized uses by virtue of fee ownership during the period of unity. Temporary unity still extinguishes the easement to that extent, and the easement does not revive upon later severance without a new grant.
No. Extinguishment occurs only to the extent the owner can make all prior authorized uses by virtue of the acquired estate. When the purchase covers only part of the servient land needed for the easement uses, the easement remains in place for the uncovered portion.
Randall formed Fair Stay as a corporation with minimal capital and deposited all room-rental revenue into his personal account. He issued no stock, held no meetings, and kept no records. When Fair Stay could not pay Premier Hotels after an economic downturn, Premier sued Randall individually. The unity of interest shown by commingling and disregard of formalities permits the court to pierce the veil and hold Randall personally liable.
Courts examine commingling of funds, failure to maintain corporate formalities, undercapitalization, and treatment of corporate assets as personal assets. When these factors demonstrate that the corporation and shareholder have no separate personalities, the first prong of the veil-piercing test is satisfied.
Yes. The second prong requires only that adherence to the corporate fiction would sanction fraud or promote injustice. Courts have pierced the veil when an undercapitalized shell used to avoid personal liability would leave a creditor without remedy even absent deliberate deceit.
…will be disregarded and the veil of limited liability pierced when two requirements are met: [F]irst, there must be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual [or other corporation] no longer exist; and second, circumstances must be such that adherence to the fiction of…