Can George be Evicted from the House?

This article discusses the legal implications of joint tenancy and whether George can be evicted from the house registered under his daughter and son-in-law's names. It explains the concept of joint tenancy, the right of survivorship, and the four unities required for joint tenancy. It also compares joint tenancy with tenancy in common and discusses the implications of family breakdown on joint tenancies. The article concludes that Paul can ask George to leave the house based on the principles of joint tenancy.

In this question, the issue is if George can be evicted from the house in which his daughter Rose
and her husband Paul were registered as joint tenants.
In this regard, the law provides that co-ownership is created where two or more persons
simultaneously holds a given estate in land and are therefore entitled to an interest in such a state.
Joint tenancy: These types of tenancies are of co-ownership of land. Therefore in this case, each
tenant or a joint pain and his equally and "wholly entitled on the whole" to the estate. This was
particularly mentioned by Lord Millett in Burton v Camden LBC (2000). Under the law, a joint
tenancy can be present at as a logical interest or an equitable interest or both. In case of a joint
tenancy, no joint tenant is considered to hold a share in the land. Instead, each tenant is invested
with the whole interest in the land (Wright v Gibbons, 1949), irrespective of whether such
interest is present in freehold or leasehold. Particularly, there are two characteristics present in
case of joint tenancies beauty which they can be distinguished from the tenancies in common.
First of all, a right of survivorship is provided by joint tenancy. Secondly, it is always required
under joint tenancies that there should be the presence of so-called four unities.
Right of survivorship: another legal term that can be used for it is the ius accrescendi. Therefore,
this right provides that in case of any of the joint tenants, the entire estate that is co-owned by the
parties is considered to 'survive to' the joint tenant(s), who is living. Therefore the deceased
cannot provide that their rights in the estate should be passed on to the nominated beneficiaries in
the will of the deceased. The reason behind the disposition of law is that by definition, the parties
have no share in the estate to pass on as are not present in case of a joint tenancy. However it can
be said that to a certain degree, the law in this case is archaic, that it is related with the multiple

deaths of joint tenants. Therefore it is provided that if several but not all the joint tenants have
died at the same time, and it is not certain that they have died in which order, it is presumed as a
matter of law that the deaths have taken place in order of seniority. This is also known as the
"commorientes" rule.
Therefore in such a case, the surviving joint tenant(s) take the complete estate that was co-owned
by the parties regardless of their lack of contribution towards the initial purchase of the estate.
Therefore, survivorship is generally a useful measure that can be used for making sure that the
family home states within the family. In such this is generally legal title is not important. It is
merely a paper titled, that is held on trust. This means that the legal title denotes the party that
has the fiduciary and administrative responsibilities regarding the land. On the other hand,
equitable title denotes the person who is going to be benefited from the land (Bond, 2017).
Change in legal joint tenancy: it is suitable for the joint tenants to opt for the transfer of legal
estate in land to themselves or to transfer the legal estate to others and hold the land as legal joint
tenants.
The Four Unities: in case of a joint tenancy, it is necessary that the so-called four unities should
be present (AG Securities v Vaughan, 1990). These can be described as follows:
Possession: possession is related with the right of each joint statement to have possession of the
land and the right of each tenant to the land is applicable to each and every part of such a state.
Consequently, it is not possible for a joint tenant to take possession of any part of the land
because by section involves that part of the land, to the exclusion of the other joint tenants is not
allowed by the law (Meyer v Riddick, 1990).

Interest: This form of unity has been derived from the notion that each joint tenant is allowed by
the law to be "wholly entitled to the whole". Therefore the interest of each joint tenant is exactly
the same regarding the nature, extent and duration.
Title: according to the unity of title it has been provided that each joint tenant derives the title to
land from the same act or document, for example an act of adverse possession or the document
like the grant. In case of a co-owned the legal estate, it is also meant by this type of unity that
when any purchaser is considering to purchase the title to a part of the co-owner of the land, such
purchaser is required to purchase only one title (Hoyle, 1984).
Time: simply stated, it is required and the disunity that the interests of all the joint tenants should
have been invested in them at the same time.
Family breakdown and the joint tenancies: joint tenancies have resulted in the rise of issues
where the joint tenants for a married couple or, they were living in a civil partnership and the
relationship between the parties had broken down irretrievably.
Ending the periodic lease: the first issue that may arise in this regard is that the legal joint
tenancy. Over the periodic lease needs unanimous act by the joint tenants. Therefore, when there
is a breakdown of the relationship, such unanimous action may not be possible. Consequently, it
has been indicated by the court that a single joint tenant may be allowed to bring the list to an
end by refusing to enter the further term for such periodic tenancy (Joint tenants, 2001).
However in this regard and issue has been noted in Qazi v Barrow (2003). This issue is that the
service of notice to quit by one tenant regarding a periodically is effectively brought the lease to

an end without considering the effect that the laws of property is going to result for the other
joint tenant(s). This issue has been considered by the court in Manchester City Council v
Pinnock (2010).
Social norms: the terms of equitable joint tenancy in case of the breakdown of relationship may
not necessarily reflect the social norms of justice regarding who is going to be entitled to a share,
particularly in cases where as a result of the breakdown, the parties are not cohabiting anymore
(Stack v Dowden, 2007). However, it is not clear. In such cases that at what point the joint
tenancies going to be severed into tenancy in common.
Tenancies in common: as compared to the joint tenancies, in case of the tenancy in common, the
co-ownership arrangement is of the nature that each co-owner is going to hold a distinct shared
or are part of the entitlement. However it needs to be mentioned that tenancy in common takes
effect only under equity. In case of the tenancies in common, there are two defining
characteristics. In view of these characteristics, the tenancies in common are distinguished from
joint tenancies. These characteristics can be described as follows:
 There is no right of survivorship present between the tenants in common.
 The only unity that is present between the tenants in common is the unity of possession.
No right of survivorship: as compared to joint tenancies, there is no right of survivorship present
between the tenants in common. The size of the share of each tenant in common is defined and
fixed. Therefore it is not affected by the death of any tenants in common.

Only unity of possession is required: similarly as compared to joint tenancies, it is not required in
case of the tenancies in common at all four unities should be fulfilled. Consequently, the new
requirement present in this case is that each tenant in common should have a right to possession
over the land.
Occupation and enjoyment: as is the case with joint tenants, in view of the unified right of
possession between the tenancies in common, no tenants in common is allowed by the law to
physically demarcate or create a boundary on any part of co-owned land for their own use by
excluding all the other co-owners. It also needs to be noted in this context that there is no
inherent right of trustees; those holding the legal interest in the land to compel one beneficiary to
sell its share to the other beneficiary (Sparkes, 1989).
Liability of occupation rent: generally it is the case between the tenants in common that no one
tenants in common, may require the entertainment to pay the rent even in cases where one of the
tenants in common is enjoying the sole occupation over the land. Where the rent is going to be
received by letting of co-owned land that is paid by a stranger who occupies the land that has
been let out, the red paint is going to be divided among the tenants in common in exactly the
same proportion to the value of their respective share.
Liability for repairs and improvements: when an offer has been made by one tenants in common
to pay for or make repairs over the co-owned land at its own expense, generally such tenant in
common does not have a right of immediate recovery of the cost from the other tenants in
common. It needs to be noted that this principle is also applicable in case of joint tenants.

In the present case, George had sold his flat and moved into the house of his daughter Rose and
her husband Paul. The house had been registered in the name of Rose and Paul as joint tenants.
George had given the proceeds of the sale of flat to Paul. A part of this family had been used by
Paul for building an extension to the house which George was going to live. Another part of this
money was used for leaving the mortgage on the house. However, after some time, George's
daughter Rose had died. Therefore Paul asks George to leave the house, and it somewhere else.
Under the circumstances, George wants to know if he can be evicted from the house. In view of
the principles related with joint tenancies mentioned above, it is clear that Paul can ask George to
leave the house.
The law provides that in case of a joint tenancy, the interest of the deceased owner is
automatically transferred to the rest of the owners of the property. For example, in case there are
house is owned by the joint tenants and one of the joint tenant dies, the rest of the two tenants,
which obtained one half share in the property. This is known as the right of survivorship.
On the other hand, if the house had been registered in the names of Paul and Rose as tenants in
common and it was discovered that Rose had named in George as the sole beneficiary of her
property in Hardeeville, the situation would have been different. In such a case, the part of the
property owned by those would have been transferred to George.
The reason is that in case of tenancy in common, each owner can leave their share in the property
to any person who has been named as the beneficiary in their bill in the case of their death. As a
result, if in the present case, the house was headed by Rose and Paul as tenants in common, it
was possible for Rose to give her share property to George, who has been named as the sole
beneficiary in her will. However this is not allowed in case of a tenancy in common.

References
Bond, A. (2017). 2017/46 Supreme Court upholds right to equal survivors’ pensions for same-
sex partners (UK). European Employment Law Cases, 2(4), 209-211.
doi:10.5553/eelc/187791072017002004009
Hoyle, R. (1984). Lords, Tenants and Tenant Right in the Sixteenth Century: Four Studies.
Northern History, 20(1), 38-63. doi:10.1179/nhi.1984.20.1.38
Joint tenants. (2001). Property Management, 19(4). doi:10.1108/pm.2001.11319dab.028
Sparkes, P. (1989). Co-Tenants, Joint Tenants and Tenants in Common. Anglo-American Law
Review, 18(2), 151-164. doi:10.1177/147377958901800203
AG Securities v Vaughan [1990]1 A.C. 417
Burton v Camden LBC [2000] 2 AC 399
Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45
Meyer v Riddick (1990) 60 P & CR 50
Qazi v Barrow [2003] UKHL 43
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17
Wright v Gibbons (1949) 78 CLR 313