Also known as: unities · unital · four unities · unity of interest · unity of time · unity of title · unity of possession
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
3 senses
A requirement for the creation of a joint tenancy at common law. The four unities are interest, possession, time, and title.
A requirement for the creation of a joint tenancy at common law. The four unities are interest, possession, time, and title.
Una Ueda and Uriel Urban acquired a parcel by the same deed at the same moment, each taking an identical one-half interest with equal rights to possess the whole. When Uriel attempted to convey his share by will, the surviving joint tenant claimed the property by right of survivorship. The court upheld the joint tenancy because all four unities had been satisfied at creation.
Usman Uddin and Unity Underhill received title to investment property through a single recorded deed that vested their interests simultaneously. Years later Usman claimed he held his interest as a tenant in common because the deed did not expressly create a joint tenancy. The court rejected the claim, finding that unity of time and title had been present from the outset and preserved the joint tenancy.
The oneness of interest and ownership between a corporation and its shareholder or another entity. This unity exists when the separate personalities no longer exist because of commingling of funds, failure to maintain corporate formalities, undercapitalization, or treating assets as one's own.
Ugo Uberti formed Ulysses Maritime as a single-member LLC with minimal capital and used the company's bank account to pay his personal expenses. When a supplier obtained a judgment against the company, the supplier sought to reach Ugo's personal assets. The court found the required unity because Ugo had treated company funds as his own and ignored all corporate formalities.
The merger of legal and equitable title in the same person. Such unity prevents formation of a valid private trust because no separation of interests exists to support fiduciary duties.
Utopia Pharmaceuticals attempted to place its inventory in a trust naming the company as sole trustee and sole beneficiary. When a creditor challenged the arrangement, the court held that the trust never came into existence. The complete unity of legal and equitable title left no one to enforce fiduciary duties against the trustee.
Union Steel declared itself trustee of a fund for the benefit of its own current owner. Because the declaration identified only the company itself as beneficiary, the court concluded that legal and equitable title remained united in one entity. The attempted trust therefore failed for lack of any division of interests.
The oneness of interest and ownership between a corporation and its shareholder or another entity. This unity exists when the separate personalities no longer exist because of commingling of funds, failure to maintain corporate formalities, undercapitalization, or treating assets as one's own.
The merger of legal and equitable title in the same person. Such unity prevents formation of a valid private trust because no separation of interests exists to support fiduciary duties.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Interest, possession, time, and title must all be present. Each joint tenant must hold an identical interest, enjoy possession of the whole, acquire title under the same instrument, and have the interest vest at the same moment.
Uliana Ustinova created Unity Capital as an undercapitalized entity that never held board meetings or kept separate records. After Unity Capital defaulted on a loan, the lender asked the court to disregard the corporate form and collect from Uliana personally. The court applied the unity prong because the entity existed only to shield Uliana from personal liability while she controlled all assets.
Unity exists when the corporation and its owner function as a single economic unit. Courts examine commingling of funds, disregard of corporate formalities, undercapitalization, and treatment of corporate assets as personal property.
A private trust requires separation so that the trustee owes enforceable duties to someone else. When the same person holds both titles, no beneficiary can hold the trustee accountable and the arrangement collapses into outright ownership.
Yes, provided the person is not the sole trustee and the sole beneficiary at the same time. Additional beneficiaries or future interests create the required separation even if the trustee also holds a beneficial interest.
…Wendy R. Weiser; for Professors of History by Roy T. Englert, Jr., Alan Untereiner, and Sherri Lynn Wolson; for the Republican Unity Coalition et al. by Erik S. Jaffe; and for Mary Robinson et al. by Harold Hongju Koh and Joseph F. Tringali. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Alabama…