Also known as: unity of interest and possession · unity of interest · unity of possession · four unities · joint tenancy unities
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
The identical interests and equal rights to possess the whole property that joint tenants must hold. Destruction of these unities severs the joint tenancy.
The identical interests and equal rights to possess the whole property that joint tenants must hold. Destruction of these unities severs the joint tenancy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A showing that a corporation and its owners have no separate personalities, required as the first prong for piercing the corporate veil.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A showing that a corporation and its owners have no separate personalities, required as the first prong for piercing the corporate veil.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Johnson and Boswell held Blackacre as joint tenants. Johnson leased his interest to a third party for five years. The court examined whether the lease destroyed the unities of interest and possession and concluded that the joint tenancy remained intact because the lease was valid only during Johnson’s life.
Frances Riddle held property with her husband as joint tenants. She executed a grant deed conveying an undivided one-half interest to herself as tenant in common. The court held that the deed severed the joint tenancy by destroying the unities of interest and possession between the former joint tenants.
Two siblings held inherited farmland as joint tenants. One sibling sought partition. The court noted that the statutory right to partition presupposes the continued existence of the unities of interest and possession and granted the action because those unities remained intact.
A lease by one joint tenant may destroy the unities of interest and possession. Some courts hold that the lease severs the joint tenancy while others treat the lease as valid only during the lessor’s lifetime.
Supporting sources
Yes. The deed destroys the unities of interest and possession that are required for a joint tenancy to continue, converting the estate into a tenancy in common.
Supporting sources
Lena and her siblings ran Harborview Inn through Harborview, Inc. They never issued stock, kept no minutes, and deposited all revenues into personal accounts to pay home mortgages. After a guest was injured and obtained a judgment, Lena moved every asset into a new LLC. The court found the required unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its owners and pierced the veil.
The Garcia family formed Sunrise Harbor, Inc. to own their hotel. They issued no stock, kept no records, and paid personal car loans from the corporate account. After a balcony collapse, they shifted every asset to a new LLC. The court held that unity of interest and ownership existed and allowed the injured guest to reach the owners personally.
Courts require a showing that unity of interest and ownership exists so that the corporation and its owners have no separate personalities. Factors include commingling of funds, failure to observe formalities, and undercapitalization.
Supporting sources
…in the property effected a severance of the joint tenancy under these principles. It could be argued that a lease destroys the unities of interest and possession because the leasing joint tenant transfers to the lessee his present possessory interest and retains a mere reversion. (See Alexander v. Boyer (1969) 253 Md. 511 [253 A.2d 359, 365].)…