Ownership Based on a Quit Claim Deed

My question involves real estate located in the State of: Michigan

If someone is listed as a partner on a quit claim deed, is that person considered by the IRS as an owner of said property?

What do you mean by a "partner" on a quit claim deed?

Just exactly how things are worded in the grant? But yes, if you grant someone ownership in a property they ARE for IRS and everyone else in the world, an owner.

The quit claim deed states "partner". I am not sure what that means legally. So you are asserting then, that anyone whom is listed on a quit claim deed in Michigan, in the eyes of the IRS, is an actual owner of said property?

Are you also asserting that a quit claim deed grants ownership of a property in the eyes of the IRS?

Just curious flyingron, are you either a real estate lawyer or a tax lawyer?

Anyone who is on the deed as an owner is an owner.

If you don't understand the deed, show it to a lawyer or real estate professional and have them explain it to you. Nobody is going to be able to tell you what the language means if they have no chance to review the language.

We are speaking of a quitclaim deed. For the grantee to be an actual owner, the grantor would have had to have held a valid interest in title of the property. For all anybody knows, the grantor held absolutely no ownership interest in the property.

so, to start with, did the grantor actually hold an ownership interest in the property?

can you write out the part concerning the term partner, leaving out actual names and anything that identifies the specific property. I am curious as to why the term partner was used.

If the word "partner" is just a description (often you'll see husband and wife embellished with "a married couple") it is entirely MEANINGLESS as far as the deed goes. All it does is help to identify the parties.

I'm thinking something more inline with a partner in a business. There are situations where an officer in a business may be named s grantee but due to their relationship with a business, they, the individual may not own the property but they, as the business entity may own the property.

Depending on what the op actually has going on here, it could change how the irs views the ownership.

If he posts the exact wording (with the names changed to something anonymous like John Doe) we might have a clue what he is talking about.

If he is implying there is a partnership here, the ownership remains in common with the partners. IRS issues would depend on just what the nature of the property and what use it is being made.

The exact wording on the "Quit Claim Deed", is: "Quit Claim(s) to Jane Doe, a Single Woman, and John Doe, a Single Man, as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship, whose address is...." etc etc....

The grantor was Jane Doe, the original owner of the home and the mortgage has always been in Jane Doe's name.

So I guess the question is, with the above wording, does this make John Doe, who is not on the mortgage, an owner of the home in the eyes of the IRS?

The note of the home - in other words, the mortgage is assigned to Jane Doe, not John Doe. At least that is what the bank is saying.

I made a mistake earlier I thought the word "Partners" was in the deed but it is not.

Quote:

---

Quoting nadsab

---

The exact wording on the "Quit Claim Deed", is: "Quit Claim(s) to Jane Doe, a Single Woman, and John Doe, a Single Man, as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship, whose address is...." etc etc....

The grantor was Jane Doe, the original owner of the home and the mortgage has always been in Jane Doe's name.

So I guess the question is, with the above wording, does this make John Doe, who is not on the mortgage, an owner of the home in the eyes of the IRS?

The note of the home - in other words, the mortgage is assigned to Jane Doe, not John Doe. At least that is what the bank is saying.

I made a mistake earlier I thought the word "Partners" was in the deed but it is not.

---

In the eyes of everyone he is an owner. If Jane Doe owned the house and quit claims it to herself and another, then the other is an owner. The house is still subject to lien/mortgage and the bank might have the right to call the loan. But if the other were to lose in a lawsuit or owe taxes, the creditor could get a subordinate lien on the property. (Of course, all this assumes the transfer was not to defraud a creditor. If the gift was for less than fair market value, a creditor [like the IRS] could get the gift reversed.)

Quote:

---

nadsab;780214]The exact wording on the "Quit Claim Deed", is: "Quit Claim(s) to Jane Doe, a Single Woman, and John Doe, a Single Man, as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship, whose address is...." etc etc....

---

in my reading, I ran across something that this may be an issue but I do not have the answer.

from my understanding, MI does allow a joint tenancy to be unequal shares. I do not know if it is required to state the shares are equal or if that is a default status if not mentioned. If it is required, the grant above, without stating the shares held by each tenant, could cause some problems.

Quote:

---

So I guess the question is, with the above wording, does this make John Doe, who is not on the mortgage, an owner of the home in the eyes of the IRS?

---

yes. the mortgage has nothing to do with ownership

the mortgage company may have a problem with this though as any change in ownership does affect their security interest. That is why a due on sale clause is commonly placed in a mortgage loan contract.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

in my reading, I ran across something that this may be an issue but I do not have the answer.

from my understanding, MI does allow a joint tenancy to be unequal shares. I do not know if it is required to state the shares are equal or if that is a default status if not mentioned. If it is required, the grant above, without stating the shares held by each tenant, could cause some problems.

---

At common law, joint tenancy requires the four unities to be true to be created. However, the effect if one is untrue was to change the tenancy to a tenants in common ownership and not void the deed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_unities

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

At common law, joint tenancy requires the four unities to be true to be created. However, the effect if one is untrue was to change the tenancy to a tenants in common ownership and not void the deed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_unities

---

research some MI law. Then get back to me. The 4 unities are old law.

Here is one code section defeating the argument for the four unities:

Quote:

---

565.49 Conveyances; same person or persons among grantors and grantees; joint tenancy, tenancy by entireties.Sec. 49.
Conveyances in which the grantor or 1 or more of the grantors are named among the grantees therein shall have the same force and effect as they would have if the conveyance were made by a grantor or grantors who are not named among the grantees. Conveyances expressing an intent to create a joint tenancy or tenancy by the entireties in the grantor or grantors together with the grantee or grantees shall be effective to create the type of ownership indicated by the terms of the conveyance.

---

then we have this:


http://www.leagle.com/decision/19847...ichApp603_1672


an excerpt:

Quote:

---

In 1955, the Legislature abolished the requirement of unity of title in creating a joint tenancy by enacting MCL 565.49; MSA 26.565.¹ Since then, no Michigan case has addressed the statute's effect on the necessity of the existence of the four unities in creating a joint tenancy.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

research some MI law. Then get back to me. The 4 unities are old law.

---

Do you claim that if the joint tenancy fails the deed is void or they become tenants in common? I understand all states do not require the unities. What do you think the remedy is if the deed does not spell the ownership out?

But, as to the research:
Wengel v. Wengel, 714 NW 2d 371 - Mich: Court of Appeals 2006

Quote:

---

In Albro, supra, our Supreme Court addressed the issue whether a tenant holding real property with a cotenant as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship can convey a life estate interest to a third person without the cotenant's consent. The Court undertook an extensive analysis of the characteristics of joint tenancies, both ordinary joint tenancies and joint tenancies specifically granting the rights of survivorship. A standard or ordinary joint tenancy is characterized by the four unities, which are (1) unity of interest, (2) unity of title, (3) unity of time, and (4) unity of possession. Id. at 274, 454 N.W.2d 85.

---

Albro v. Allen, 434 Mich. 271 (1990)

Quote:

---

Michigan law recognizes two forms of joint tenancies. The first is of the type typically recognized in various jurisdictions. This joint tenancy is characterized by the four unities, that is, unity of interest, unity of title, unity of time, and unity of possession. 2 Tiffany, Real Property (3d ed), § 418, p 196.^[1] Each joint tenant shares in possession of the entire estate, and each is entitled to an undivided share of the whole. 4A Powell, Real Property, ¶ 617[1], p 51-9. The principal characteristic 275*275 of the joint tenancy is the right of survivorship. Upon the death of one joint tenant, the surviving tenant or tenants take the whole estate. Tiffany, supra, § 419, p 198. In the standard joint tenancy, the right of survivorship may be destroyed by severance of the joint tenancy. Id., p 199. The joint tenancy may be severed by an act of the parties, by conveyance by either party, or by levy and sale on an execution against one of the parties. Smith v Smith, 290 Mich 143; 287 NW 411 (1939). If one joint tenant conveys his interest to a third party, then the remaining joint tenant and the grantee become tenants in common, thus destroying the element of survivorship. Powell, supra, ¶ 618[1], p 51-14; Tiffany, supra, § 425, p 209.

---

It seems the state maintains the common law unless things changed quite recently.

Quote:

---

Welfarelvr;780263]Do you claim that if the joint tenancy fails the deed is void or they become tenants in common? I understand all states do not require the unities. What do you think the remedy is if the deed does not spell the ownership out?

---

no, I do not argue that a deed intending to create a JT, if for some reason it cannot create a JT defaults to a TIC. Not sure of your point. I never said anything contrary. What I was speaking to is an unequal share of ownership is a possibility with a JT (also contrary to one of the four unities) but I do not know if not mentioning a division of shares held by the tenants defaults to an equal share held by each. That is all I said.

Quote:

---

It seems the state maintains the common law unless things changed quite recently

---

how about statute, like the one I posted.

and the case law I posted.

You don't like the Supreme Court? Heck, it even used your case:

Quote:

---

The Court of Appeals has repeatedly recognized that the express words of survivorship create a joint life estate with dual contingent remainders, Butler v Butler, 122 Mich App 361, 364; 332 NW2d 488 (1983); ("joint life estate in all of the grantees followed by a contingent remainder in fee to the survivor"); In re Ledwidge Estate, 136 Mich App 603, 607; 358 NW2d 18 (1984) ("moiety to the joint tenants for life with remainder to the survivor in fee"); Albro v Allen, 170 Mich App 240 ("joint life estate followed by a contingent remainder in fee to the survivor").

The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the interest held by Allen and Albro was a "joint life estate followed by a contingent remainder in 278*278 fee to the survivor," id., but it erred when it applied the rules governing ordinary joint tenancies to this case. We do not agree with the conclusion that "by operation of law, any alienation would convert the joint life estate to a tenancy in common, thereby defeating the survivorship element of the joint life estate." Id., p 241. Were this an ordinary joint tenancy, conveyance of one party's interest would indeed convert the tenancy into a tenancy in common, thus destroying the survivorship element of the joint tenancy. Powell, supra. However, where the interest held is a joint life estate with dual contingent remainders, the principles governing ordinary joint tenancies are not controlling.

---

The holding in your case was:

Quote:

---

This Court interprets MCL 565.49; MSA 26.565 to mean that rigid adherence to the requirement of the four unities in creating a joint tenancy is not warranted where such adherence will defeat the intent of the grantor(s).

---

That is a far cry from saying the attempted creation of a joint tenancy requires specific mentioning of equal shares in order for there to be equal shares. Rather, if the parties can prove the intent was to give unequal shares then that does not inherently defeat a right of survivorship. (As explained by the Supreme Court in the case I cited.)

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

You don't like the Supreme Court? Heck, it even used your case:

The holding in your case was:
That is a far cry from saying the attempted creation of a joint tenancy requires specific mentioning of equal shares in order for there to be equal shares. Rather, if the parties can prove the intent was to give unequal shares then that does not inherently defeat a right of survivorship. (As explained by the Supreme Court in the case I cited.)

---

you are missing the point in your attempts to make an argument. The four unities are not required to create a joint tenancy. That has been determined in both common law and statute. Why you want to keep beating that drum I have no idea but because you do, one of the four unities was an equal share of ownership held by the tenants. At one point it had to be equal shares. It no longer is so.

Since the four unities are not in play, that would mean that the shares of ownership can be unequal. In the OP's situation, there is no stated share of ownership assigned to either tenant. I simply posed the question of whether there is a requirement that a percentage of ownership interest be specified or, if not mentioned, does it default to equal shares. If it does not default to equal shares, that could cause the deed to be considered defective. If it does, then there is no problem with the deed, as long as the grantor intended to have equal shares as the result.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

you are missing the point in your attempts to make an argument. The four unities are not required to create a joint tenancy. That has been determined in both common law and statute. Why you want to keep beating that drum I have no idea but because you do, one of the four unities was an equal share of ownership held by the tenants. At one point it had to be equal shares. It no longer is so.

Since the four unities are not in play, that would mean that the shares of ownership can be unequal. In the OP's situation, there is no stated share of ownership assigned to either tenant. I simply posed the question of whether there is a requirement that a percentage of ownership interest be specified or, if not mentioned, does it default to equal shares. If it does not default to equal shares, that could cause the deed to be considered defective. If it does, then there is no problem with the deed, as long as the grantor intended to have equal shares as the result.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

you are missing the point in your attempts to make an argument. The four unities are not required to create a joint tenancy. That has been determined in both common law and statute. Why you want to keep beating that drum I have no idea but because you do, one of the four unities was an equal share of ownership held by the tenants. At one point it had to be equal shares. It no longer is so.

Since the four unities are not in play, that would mean that the shares of ownership can be unequal. In the OP's situation, there is no stated share of ownership assigned to either tenant. I simply posed the question of whether there is a requirement that a percentage of ownership interest be specified or, if not mentioned, does it default to equal shares. If it does not default to equal shares, that could cause the deed to be considered defective. If it does, then there is no problem with the deed, as long as the grantor intended to have equal shares as the result.

---

You are the one who is missing the point(s) in an attempt to make an argument. Your theory about the purpose of the statue and what the common law is is not correct. But, let us go through our thread.

1. Why you brought this up as a potential "problem" in the first place was a mistake. From the basic question of the OP, who cares the amount of ownership? It is irrelevant from this thread alone. If you look at the OP's history, you will also find there may even be more to the basic question that makes the percentage ownership even less important. I suspect the OP is trying to weave a scenario where the IRS cannot seize a person's property. My total guess is that he thought that maybe if his friend were to quitclaim some of his property to the OP, the IRS cannot collect against the entire property. Again, that is just a guess. But even if it is not correct, from the OP's question, the percentage ownership is not important.

2. From an evidentiary perspective, there would be 50/50 ownership in our case--even if your legal theory was correct (Which I will discuss infra.). The statute of frauds requires a writing to transfer land. Here, the deed. The parol evidence rule will not allow prior to or contemporaneous evidence to change the meaning of the deed. The Supreme Court tells us at common law, joint tenancy still has the four equities as recently as 2006. A prior year appellate court that is referenced in that opinion having dicta that disagrees is not precedent for the fact you seem to think it means. Since we have a writing intended to be the embodiment of the transfer (deed) and we cannot bring in prior or contemporaneous evidence of anything that differs and the clear meaning of such a deed under common law is that equal ownership results, where are we going to get any intent that differs before a judge? Practically, even under your theory, the result is clear.

3. Finally, I think you misunderstand the meaning and effect of the change you cited. Read it again. Read the case(s) again as well. At common law a joint tenancy can be destroyed and changed if something destroys the unities. In other words, if we had a joint tenancy and I sold or transferred mine to another, the joint tenancy would be broken and we (or, you and the guy) would be tenants in common even if you wanted to be joint tenants. You would not have come into ownership at the same "time" and, depending on the state, not with the same "title" so there could not be a joint deed even though "interest" and "possession" would be the same. That is what the change in the statute is meant to address. Say I transfer the deed to my daughter with the intent to remain in joint tenancy with you from the language in the transfer deed. 565.49 is designed to address that situation. Compare that with our situation in this thread.

You are rediculous. I love how you argue the four unities are required to create a joint tenancy and then turn around and argue the direct opposite.

And converting a joint tenancy by destroying the unities? You have no idea what you are even talking about. At one time the four unities were required to create a joint tenancy. There is no way to change the unities because the only time they are relevant is upon the creation of the joint tenancy so unless you have a time machine and can go back in time and change the facts present at the time of the creation of the joint tenancy, "changing" the unities is a meaningless statement. Of course you can convert a joint tenancy to a TIC but it has nothing to do with the unities. It is simply a matter of re-deeding the property such that a tic is created.


Your statement regarding the statute I cited is so wrong I don't know where to start so I won't.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your ramblings since attempting to correct you is n effort in futility.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You are rediculous. I love how you argue the four unities are required to create a joint tenancy and then turn around and argue the direct opposite.

And converting a joint tenancy by destroying the unities? You have no idea what you are even talking about. At one time the four unities were required to create a joint tenancy. There is no way to change the unities because the only time they are relevant is upon the creation of the joint tenancy so unless you have a time machine and can go back in time and change the facts present at the time of the creation of the joint tenancy, "changing" the unities is a meaningless statement. Of course you can convert a joint tenancy to a TIC but it has nothing to do with the unities. It is simply a matter of re-deeding the property such that a tic is created.


Your statement regarding the statute I cited is so wrong I don't know where to start so I won't.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your ramblings since attempting to correct you is n effort in futility.

---

Correct me? You do not even have a basic understanding nor does it seem you have read or understood any of the cases. While the language in this thread might very well create a joint life estate with contingent remainders (Jones v. Green, 337 Mich. App. 412) and the second type mentioned by the Supreme Court case I provided previously, how do you think you destroy a common law joint tenancy?

Albro v. Allen, 454 Mich. 271 said:

Quote:

---

At the crux of this case is the distinction between the "joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship" and the ordinary joint tenancy. The "joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship" is comprised of a joint life estate with dual contingent remainders. See 1 Cameron, Michigan Real Property Law, § 9.11, p 274. While the survivorship 276*276 feature of the ordinary joint tenancy may be defeated by the act of a cotenant, the dual contingent remainders of the "joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship" are indestructible. A cotenant's contingent remainder cannot be destroyed by an act of the other cotenant.

---

You see, we do not need a "time machine", we need an act destroying the unities. This is also known as severance. A legal definition of this can be found at http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unity-of-possession/:

Quote:

---

Unity of possession means that each cotenant is entitled to possession of the whole property and every part thereof, subject to the same right in the other cotenants. Unity of possession is the essential dynamic present in all tenancies in common.

In Porter v. Porter, 472 So. 2d 630 (Ala. 1985), the court held that, at common law a joint tenancy could be severed by destruction of one of the four unities, that is, time, title, interest, and possession. Unity of possession requires that the property be held by one and the same undivided possession. Unity of possession means that all joint tenants have a common right to possess and enjoy the property. Possession by one cotenant is presumed to be possession by all. When one or all of the unities of time, title, and interest are destroyed the joint tenancy is severed and a tenancy in common results. This result follows from the rule of law that a tenancy in common requires only one unity, that of possession.

---

That you are unaware of the language only makes it obvious which one of us does not know what they are taking about.

Your continued reliance on the dicta of a case saying a statute eliminated the concept of joint tenancy through the unities when multiple, modern and precedential cases on that particular issue show differently is why your attempts to "correct" me are futile. As your claim my statement regarding the statute you cited was so wrong you did not even know where to start to correct me, you might look to the Supreme Court footnote in Tkachik v. Mandeville, 487 Mich. 38 (2010) that said, in part:

Quote:

---

A joint tenancy, by contrast, is a single estate owned by two or more parties and is characterized by four "unities": "`joint tenants have one and the same interest; accru[e] by one and the same conveyance; commenc[e] at one and the same time; and have the same possession.'" Kemp v. Sutton, 233 Mich. 249, 258, 206 N.W. 366 (1925) (citation omitted). Michigan law has subsequently abolished the requirements of unities of time and title. See MCL 565.49.

---

Time and title. How interesting the Supreme Court used the same unities I used when trying to explain the statute to you.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

You don't like the Supreme Court? Heck, it even used your case:

The holding in your case was:
That is a far cry from saying the attempted creation of a joint tenancy requires specific mentioning of equal shares in order for there to be equal shares. Rather, if the parties can prove the intent was to give unequal shares then that does not inherently defeat a right of survivorship. (As explained by the Supreme Court in the case I cited.)

---

you still miss my point but even funnier, you argue against yourself when comparing the above to this:

Quote:

---

2. From an evidentiary perspective, there would be 50/50 ownership in our case--even if your legal theory was correct (Which I will discuss infra.). The statute of frauds requires a writing to transfer land. Here, the deed. The parol evidence rule will not allow prior to or contemporaneous evidence to change the meaning of the deed.

---

either you can show an intent to own unequal shares as you state in the first quote or you can't as you argue in the second quote. Which is it?

Quote:

---

1. Why you brought this up as a potential "problem" in the first place was a mistake. From the basic question of the OP, who cares the amount of ownership?

---

this is where you failed and continue to fail. I mentioned something but did not give an answer as I do not have it. It is clear that unequal shares can be held in a joint tenancy (contrary to the four unities requirement). The problem arises if given that fact, does the failure to state a division of ownership simply default to a 50/50 share (which would have been a requirement under the four unities) or does it cause a problem possibly causing the deed to be determined defective. If defective, what is the result; voiding the deed? something else?

Quote:

---

It is irrelevant from this thread alone.

---

actually, it is not irrelevant to this thread IF (and I say that because again, I do not have an answer to my own question) the lack of an assignment of shares would cause the deed to be deemed invalid, then the transfer did not take place and as such, there is no co-ownership of any sort. Espcially given your suspicions of your reasons for the thread itself, it is relevant to the OP's issue.

I suspect it would be ruled a 50/50 split but without evidence either way, all it is is suspicion.

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court tells us at common law, joint tenancy still has the four equities as recently as 2006.

---

I suspect you are referring to this statement when you say that:

Quote:

---

This joint tenancy is characterized by the fourunities, that is, unity of interest, unity of title, unity of time, and unity of possession. 2 Tiffany, Real Property (3d ed), § 418, p 196.^[1]

---

that was simply a reference to a the typical means to create a JT. It does not mean that is the only way it can be created. I have given case law and statute that proved the four unities are not required. You stand on a simple reference to a common joint tenancy which was simply intending to be a means to differentiate a typical JT from a JT withe full rights of survivorship.

Quote:

---

A prior year appellate court that is referenced in that opinion having dicta that disagrees is not precedent for the fact you seem to think it means. Since we have a writing intended to be the embodiment of the transfer (deed) and we cannot bring in prior or contemporaneous evidence of anything that differs and the clear meaning of such a deed under common law is that equal ownership results, where are we going to get any intent that differs before a judge?

---

again, you miss the point entirely. See above.


.

Quote:

---

At common law a joint tenancy can be destroyed and changed if something destroys the unities.

---

that is incorrect. You cannot change the unities as they are facts of the situation past. Once the JT is created, the four unities cannot be undone. How you severe a common JT is quite simple. From your own citation:

Quote:

---

The joint tenancy may be severed by an act of the parties, by conveyance by either party, or by levy and sale on an execution against one of the parties.

---

so, you do not destroy the unities under which the exitisting JT was created. You can defeat the JT by a simple transference of either parties interest. In fact, one of the JTs can cause the title to become TIC by simply deeding their own interest to themselves.

Quote:

---

In other words, if we had a joint tenancy and I sold or transferred mine to another, the joint tenancy would be broken and we (or, you and the guy) would be tenants in common even if you wanted to be joint tenants.

---

Um, "we" wouldn't be anything because you had just transferred your interest to another party. There is one unity that always remains: unity of title. The unity of time has fallen by the wayside. It no longer requires a straw man transaction for one person to deed their interest to themselves and others to create a JT. The unity of interest has fallen as described in the case I cited. The unity of possession is sort of a given as the definition of a JT is that one owns their share as an indivisible interest in the whole.

Quote:

---

You would not have come into ownership at the same "time" and, depending on the state, not with the same "title" so there could not be a joint deed even though "interest" and "possession" would be the same.

---

sorry but the statute I provided specifically states that the unity of time is no longer an issue.

Quote:

---

That is what the change in the statute is meant to address.

---

No, that is not what the statute says. It speaks to having a grantor and grantee being the same party. Per the four unities, that was not a possibility. The statute removes that requirement, hence the removal of the requirement of a straw man sale to cause a unity of time between the grantees.

Quote:

---

Welfarelvr;780554]Correct me? You do not even have a basic understanding nor does it seem you have read or understood any of the cases. While the language in this thread might very well create a joint life estate with contingent remainders (Jones v. Green, 337 Mich. App. 412) and the second type mentioned by the Supreme Court case I provided previously, how do you think you destroy a common law joint tenancy?

---

I already addressed how to terminate a JT, at least a common JT.

Quote:

---

Albro v. Allen, 454 Mich. 271 said:
You see, we do not need a "time machine", we need an act destroying the unities. This is also known as severance. A legal definition of this can be found at http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unity-of-possession/:
That you are unaware of the language only makes it obvious which one of us does not know what they are taking about.

---

again, you cannot alter the unities because they are facts existing at the time of the creation of the JT.

Quote:

---

Your continued reliance on the dicta of a case saying a statute eliminated the concept of joint tenancy through the unities when multiple, modern and precedential cases on that particular issue show differently is why your attempts to "correct" me are futile.

---

show me an actual statement that the 4 unities are required to create a JT (in MI). The statute I provided specifically removes the unity of time as a requirement.

Quote:

---

As your claim my statement regarding the statute you cited was so wrong you did not even know where to start to correct me, you might look to the Supreme Court footnote in Tkachik v. Mandeville, 487 Mich. 38 (2010)

---

You mean this one:

Quote:

---

A joint tenancy, by contrast, is a single estate owned by two or more parties and is characterized by four "unities": "`joint tenants have one and the same interest; accru[e] by one and the same conveyance; commenc[e] at one and the same time; and have the same possession.'" Kemp v. Sutton, 233 Mich. 249, 258, 206 N.W. 366 (1925) (citation omitted). Michigan law has subsequently abolished the requirements of unities of time and title. See MCL 565.49.

---

did you miss this part of that citation:

Quote:

---

Michigan law has subsequently abolished the requirements of unities of time and title.

---

Quote:

---

that said, in part:
Time and title. How interesting the Supreme Court used the same unities I used when trying to explain the statute to you.

---

yes, how interesting they used the same words......

when they stated the requirement for those unities to be present has been abolished.

I am stunned. The gobltygook you are spewing is simply wrong. I would go point by point, but have addressed most issues with case law time and time again and it seems to not matter to you. Amazing.

Quote:

---

either you can show an intent to own unequal shares as you state in the first quote or you can't as you argue in the second quote. Which is it?

---

Non-sensical. Please supply the quotes. What you quoted seems to have no relationship to your claim.

Quote:

---

this is where you failed and continue to fail. I mentioned something but did not give an answer as I do not have it. It is clear that unequal shares can be held in a joint tenancy (contrary to the four unities requirement). The problem arises if given that fact, does the failure to state a division of ownership simply default to a 50/50 share (which would have been a requirement under the four unities) or does it cause a problem possibly causing the deed to be determined defective. If defective, what is the result; voiding the deed? something else?

---

Name an example. Give a case. Do not give some purported "logic" from In re Ledwidge dicta. Give a holding. I have given two with one from a higher court. Albro v. Allen:

Quote:

---

Michigan law recognizes two forms of joint tenancies. The first is of the type typically recognized in various jurisdictions. This joint tenancy is characterized by the four unities, that is, unity of interest, unity of title, unity of time, and unity of possession. 2 Tiffany, Real Property (3d ed), § 418, p 196.

---

The case goes on to describe the type of joint tenancy that does not require the four equities. That is better called a joint life estate with contingent remainder. It cannot be destroyed by selling the deed. The right of survivorship survives. Either we have a joint tenancy with the four equities or we have a joint life estate with contingent remainder that cannot be broken. When you understand and read the discussion, you will know you cannot create that in unequal shares. What is the difference between a life estate or 1/3 a life estate? It still is possession. What is the difference to the end result of a contingent remainder? The end result will be fee simple of the entire portion. There cannot be a partition of the remainder. Read the case and try to understand. Stop posting crazy theories. Time and title do not have to be the same in a modern joint tenancy. Interest and possession remain.

Quote:

---

actually, it is not irrelevant to this thread IF (and I say that because again, I do not have an answer to my own question) the lack of an assignment of shares would cause the deed to be deemed invalid, then the transfer did not take place and as such, there is no co-ownership of any sort. Espcially given your suspicions of your reasons for the thread itself, it is relevant to the OP's issue.

---

Deemed invalid? Where do you get that? There is NO scenario being considered that voids the deed. Are you even reading what you write?

Quote:

---

that was simply a reference to a the typical means to create a JT. It does not mean that is the only way it can be created. I have given case law and statute that proved the four unities are not required. You stand on a simple reference to a common joint tenancy which was simply intending to be a means to differentiate a typical JT from a JT withe full rights of survivorship.

---

Read the cases. Even if four unities are not required the one you consider important in this is. I gave an example of the purpose and plain meaning of the statute.

Quote:

---

that is incorrect. You cannot change the unities as they are facts of the situation past. Once the JT is created, the four unities cannot be undone. How you severe a common JT is quite simple. From your own citation:

---

Your problem is that anyone with any knowledge of property law knows this statement to be false and misunderstands what is happening. The citation showed how to sever the joint tenancy by breaking the unities. I think rather than looking to specifics in an attempt to argue your error, you should review basic law reviews. Get a hornbook on Property law or something.

That the 4 unities have been abolished, that does not make you correct. You are still wrong in your confusion. That you cannot see that shows you are merely arguing and not giving reasoned debate. What do you think IS required for a joint tenancy. Just the word "joint" on the deed?

[QUOTE=Welfarelvr;780611]I am stunned. The gobltygook you are spewing is simply wrong. I would go point by point, but have addressed most issues with case law time and time again and it seems to not matter to you. Amazing.

Quote:

---

Non-sensical. Please supply the quotes. What you quoted seems to have no relationship to your claim.

---

are you daft? I already did.

Quote:

---

Name an example. Give a case. Do not give some purported "logic" from In re Ledwidge dicta. Give a holding. I have given two with one from a higher court. Albro v. Allen:

---

you are a freaking idiot. You are arguing a statement I made, admitting I do not know the answer but rather as a point to consider as depending on how the law views it, it could cause a problem for any JT if the division of interest is not specified. Do you have the answer? if so, pony up some proof.


The case goes on to describe the type of joint tenancy that does not require the four equities. That is better called a joint life estate with contingent remainder. It cannot be destroyed by selling the deed. The right of survivorship survives. Either we have a joint tenancy with the four equities or we have a joint life estate with contingent remainder that cannot be broken.

Quote:

---

When you understand and read the discussion, you will know you cannot create that in unequal shares.

---

really? I guess you missed the citation I provided long ago where the interest was divided 25%/75%. Gee, I wonder why that was addressed this way if it is not possible:

Quote:

---

Looking primarily to the intent of the parties, courts in other jurisdictions have concluded that the four unities do not have to exist in order to create a joint tenancy. See Cleaver v Long, 69 Ohio Law Abs 488; 126 N.E.2d 479, 482 (1955); In re Estate of Baker, 247 Iowa 1380, 1384; 78 N.W.2d 863 (1956); Merchants & Planters Bank v Myers, 644 S.W.2d 683, 689-690 (Tenn App, 1982). This Court interprets MCL 565.49; MSA 26.565 to mean that rigid adherence to the requirement of the four unities in creating a joint tenancy is not warranted where such adherence will defeat the intent of the grantor(s).

---

unless you can find support for a statutory requirement there be a unity of interest or case law clearly stating there must be such (as opposed to a simple referral of the "typical creation of a JT" and the four unities), there is no requirement there be a unity of interest if the intent of the parties is to create a JT.

.

Quote:

---

Time and title do not have to be the same in a modern joint tenancy. Interest and possession remain.

---

so that case I cited where the shares were 25/75 made for an invalid JT? Apparently not.

Quote:

---

Deemed invalid? Where do you get that? There is NO scenario being considered that voids the deed. Are you even reading what you write?

---

are you reading what I write? Apparently not. I posed a question. I did not state a fact.

and if you want to argue there is no scenario being considered that voids the deed, pony up some proof that a JT without definition of the interest of each party defaults to a 50/50 division or is addressed in any other manner. As I originally said and continue to say; I do not have the answer for that but given the decisions of the courts regarding such matters, it would not surprise me to see an undefined statement of division of interest could result in an invalid deed as it is not clear in its intent.


.

Quote:

---

I gave an example of the purpose and plain meaning of the statute.

---

and you were wrong but what the Hell, why should you start being right now after all this time being wrong.

Quote:

---

Your problem is that anyone with any knowledge of property law knows this statement to be false and misunderstands what is happening. The citation showed how to sever the joint tenancy by breaking the unities.

---

No, it didn't as, again, the unities are based in fact at the time of the creation of the JT. You cannot go back in time and "break" any of the unities. A party can transfer interest to another which creates a totally different relationship but it still is not "breaking" any of the unities in existence at the time the JT was created.





T

Quote:

---

hat the 4 unities have been abolished, that does not make you correct. You are still wrong in your confusion.

---

but it makes you wrong from your second post in this thread where you stated this:.

Quote:

---

At common law, joint tenancy requires the four unities to be true to be created. However, the effect if one is untrue was to change the tenancy to a tenants in common ownership and not void the deed.

---

Quote:

---

What do you think IS required for a joint tenancy. Just the word "joint" on the deed?

---

intent, unity of possession, unity of title.

there can be no joint tenancy without the intent to create a JT so the statement "as joint tenants" is a requirement
JT must arise out of a common deed so the unity of title must be present
JT, by definition, does not allow a divisible right of possession so unity of possession is a requirement

jk, quit feeding the troll.

I'm surprised that you have the patience to waste your valuable time. When I reread this thread, I hear a clock ticking in the background.....

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

jk, quit feeding the troll.

I'm surprised that you have the patience to waste your valuable time. When I reread this thread, I hear a clock ticking in the background.....

---

at first I saw it as honest error on welfarelover's part. As it continued, I see it is something else but I do have to admit in researching the issues, I did learn some as well. So, I did benefit from the "discussion" regardless of welfarelover's antagonism.

but thanks for the comment.:tickled_pink:

If it helps....

Quote:

---

Quoting Taylor v. Taylor 310 Mich. 541, 17 N.W.2d 745 (1945)

---

'Where a conveyance or deed to two or more persons does not state the interest of each, their estates are presumed to be equal: but the presumption may be rebutted by proof.' Hill v. Reiner (syllabus), 167 Mich. 400, 132 N.W. 1031.

---

Ambiguity seems most likely to be found when there's something odd about the granting language (e.g., the grant to an unmarried couple of a tenancy by the entirety).

1. The issue regarding percentage ownership is not relevant to the OP's question.
2. The issue regarding percentage ownership is even less relevant to what I believe the purpose of the OP's question.
3. The state of Michigan still has a joint tenancy with the four unities. By statute, two of the unities are not required. Those unities are time and title. Without the other unities you do not have a joint tenancy as merely using the term "joint" in a deed will not overcome the presumption of tenants in common.
4. A joint tenancy can be severed by acts the destroy the unities. There are different ways to destroy the unities and revert a joint tenancy to a tenants in common. Partition can be done.
4. What we have here by the language used is a joint life estate with contingent remainder. This is the ownership the Michigan Supreme Court said was found in many appellate cases, including In Re Ledwidge Estate. Ledwidge is used for the proposition the contingent remainder was not destroyed when parties acted against the unities.
5. In such a tenancy, the life estate can be partitioned but the contingent remainder cannot.
6. In a life estate to more than one person, each have equal possession. The contingent remainder goes to the last one living. The interests are the same to all parties. They are not "equal" as one life tenant will probably live longer than the other.

Restating an incorrect statement does not make it true welfare lover.


thanks for the added into Mr. K. That would answer my question and show it is not a concern.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Restating an incorrect statement does not make it true welfare lover.


thanks for the added into Mr. K. That would answer my question and show it is not a concern.

---

Name the numbered statement you disagree with and correct it according to your theory of what is correct. It was never a "concern" except in your detour from giving the OP an answer to his question.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

Name the numbered statement you disagree with and correct it according to your theory of what is correct. It was never a "concern" except in your detour from giving the OP an answer to his question.

---

You are correct that it was a concern to me. If my concerns born out, it could have been a concern for the OP.

the OP's question was answered long ago so I have no idea why YOUR detour really matters at this point. I posed my concern, which you never proved incorrect btw, stating if my concern bears out, it could mean the deed is defective. That would be an issue the OP would need to be made aware of. You then started your tirade about the four unities that are not requisite for a joint tenancy to be created. You went back and forth stating they were, then they weren't, then they were. You need to stop wavering so much. It makes it look like you have no idea what you are talking about.

as to what is incorrect?

#3. . It is never required to have all four unities to create a joint tenancy in MI. You take a reference to the historical description of joint tenancy when the courts were simply attempting to differentiate that from a JT WFROS and are attempting to roll that into a statement the four unities are required to create a joint tenancy. In neither type of JT are all four unities required to create the joint tenancy.

#4
I suppose in a simplistic view of the matter you can argue one or more of the unities is destroyed but the point is; the existing JT is simply being terminated. You are not acting to destroy the unities but rather to terminate the JT for whatever reason by whatever action was taken.


your second #4 is also wrong (so does that count as an extra wrong because you have two #4s?)

Quote:

---

Ledwidge is used for the proposition the contingent remainder was not destroyed when parties acted against the unities.

---

actually, that would only apply if any number of tenants less than the entire number of tenants acted. If all tenants agree, the JT WFROFS can be terminated.

#5. right or wrong; who cares? What does it have to do with anything in this thread?


#6 wrong. First, because of your lack of care in what you write:

Quote:

---

In a life estate to more than one person, each have equal possession.

---

they each have a RIGHT of equal possession. Whether they have actual equal possession or not is not determined by the joint tenancy. It would simply be a statement of fact.

Quote:

---

The contingent remainder goes to the last one living.

---

ok, but of course that is only true if the JT WROFS is not terminated prior to that situation.

Quote:

---

The interests are the same to all parties.

---

whoa. Nope. Refer to the case law I provided. The interests of one tenant was 3 times that of the other.

Quote:

---

They are not "equal" as one life tenant will probably live longer than the other.

---

this is just you babbling. It is a nonsensical statement with no meaning. What it appears you are trying to do is mix up the interest in title and the ultimate remainder interest which really have nothing to do with each other. It will be what it is if the JT WROFS is not terminated prior to the death of all but one of the tenants. It is not able to be calculated and compared between the various tenants interests and attempting to suggest it can be is silly.

If you have anything else to say to the matter, don't expect a reply by me. If you continue to have a closed mind, you cannot learn and I'm done wasting my time on you.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You are correct that it was a concern to me. If my concerns born out, it could have been a concern for the OP.

---

His question was:
"If someone is listed as a partner on a quit claim deed, is that person considered by the IRS as an owner of said property?"
How can the percentage ownership make any difference to that question? The OP clarified:
"So you are asserting then, that anyone whom is listed on a quit claim deed in Michigan, in the eyes of the IRS, is an actual owner of said property?"
The percentage ownership makes any difference to the question, how?

Quote:

---

the OP's question was answered long ago so I have no idea why YOUR detour really matters at this point. I posed my concern, which you never proved incorrect btw, stating if my concern bears out, it could mean the deed is defective. That would be an issue the OP would need to be made aware of. You then started your tirade about the four unities that are not requisite for a joint tenancy to be created. You went back and forth stating they were, then they weren't, then they were. You need to stop wavering so much. It makes it look like you have no idea what you are talking about.

---

You have not made a scenario where the deed is "defective". I am quite clear in my points. You are the one with a tirade of some sort and are all over the place with precisely saying what you mean.

Quote:

---

#3. . It is never required to have all four unities to create a joint tenancy in MI. You take a reference to the historical description of joint tenancy when the courts were simply attempting to differentiate that from a JT WFROS and are attempting to roll that into a statement the four unities are required to create a joint tenancy. In neither type of JT are all four unities required to create the joint tenancy.

---

That is your correction to what I wrote? Where in my statement did I make a requirement of all four unities? That you continue to misstate a simple statement shows your continued lack of understanding. Of course, your mishmash of a statement in response continues to beg the question. What IS required for a joint tenancy? That is where you need to see how the law developed from the four unities and then statutorily remove time and title. You are left with interest and possession and the formalities of the deed.

Quote:

---

#4
I suppose in a simplistic view of the matter you can argue one or more of the unities is destroyed but the point is; the existing JT is simply being terminated. You are not acting to destroy the unities but rather to terminate the JT for whatever reason by whatever action was taken.

---

It is actually a true understanding of how to accomplish a "termination". (Legal jargon tip, a "severance", not a termination.) A simplistic view is to say what needs to be done. A more complex and relevant view is to know WHY it needs to be done. You see, a joint tenancy is where all parties take single ownership of the whole. That is why the unities are necessary to a joint tenancy and why doing acts against those unities sever it. Some people memorize a set of rules while others understand the principles and can derive the rules. Your simplistic view of the matter shows which camp you fall in.

Quote:

---

your second #4 is also wrong (so does that count as an extra wrong because you have two #4s?)
actually, that would only apply if any number of tenants less than the entire number of tenants acted. If all tenants agree, the JT WFROFS can be terminated.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

#5. right or wrong; who cares? What does it have to do with anything in this thread?

---

It is the premise for #6

Quote:

---

#6 wrong. First, because of your lack of care in what you write:

they each have a RIGHT of equal possession. Whether they have actual equal possession or not is not determined by the joint tenancy. It would simply be a statement of fact.
ok, but of course that is only true if the JT WROFS is not terminated prior to that situation.

whoa. Nope. Refer to the case law I provided. The interests of one tenant was 3 times that of the other.
this is just you babbling.

---

That is not what the court held. That is not how the holding is referred to in later cases. Again, you argue and do not make a claim. aka babble.

Quote:

---

It is a nonsensical statement with no meaning. What it appears you are trying to do is mix up the interest in title and the ultimate remainder interest which really have nothing to do with each other. It will be what it is if the JT WROFS is not terminated prior to the death of all but one of the tenants. It is not able to be calculated and compared between the various tenants interests and attempting to suggest it can be is silly.

---

And yet, that is what you are arguing is true. I agree is is not able to be calculated. Since that is the case, how can we not have unity of interest?

Quote:

---

If you have anything else to say to the matter, don't expect a reply by me. If you continue to have a closed mind, you cannot learn and I'm done wasting my time on you.

---

I don't expect or require a reply. I only wish for clarity. Something your multiplicity of words have made quite difficult.

.

Quote:

---

I only wish for clarity

---

.given your ramblings, that is something I suspect you will never enjoy. Given the fact you continue to contradict your own statements and attempt to deny making a statements and attempt to attribute it to me, I suspect either you have taken too many drugs or not enough but in either case, will never enjoy clarity of mind.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

..given your ramblings, that is something I suspect you will never enjoy. Given the fact you continue to contradict your own statements and attempt to deny making a statements and attempt to attribute it to me, I suspect either you have taken too many drugs or not enough but in either case, will never enjoy clarity of mind.

---

How sad the only clear statement you are capable of making is an insult. How much better your contributions would be if you could communicate as clearly on matters of law.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

How sad the only clear statement you are capable of making is an insult. How much better your contributions would be if you could communicate as clearly on matters of law.

---

I'm trying to figure out if you won't understand or can't understand. Hopefully it's the latter. At least that way we all know it is not your fault you cannot understand anything. If the first, then shame on you troll.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I'm trying to figure out if you won't understand or can't understand. Hopefully it's the latter. At least that way we all know it is not your fault you cannot understand anything. If the first, then shame on you troll.

---

The funny thing is a person who did not even understand basic legal concepts and jargon is trying to consider if another understands the law.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

The funny thing is a person who did not even understand basic legal concepts and jargon is trying to consider if another understands the law.

---

Why do you speak that way of yourself. I understand the concepts and jargon quite well. You attempting to insert a term you want to use in place of a term I specifically used does not make me wrong. It makes you wrong. As to understanding principles: if you recall, this all started when you erroneously posted the four unities were required to create a joint tenancy. Then you waffled back and forth that they were required, then they weren't, then they were, then they weren't and on and on. Your position on the matter still is not clear.

so, what I find funny is you claiming you have any idea what is going on at all in this thread.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Why do you speak that way of yourself. I understand the concepts and jargon quite well. You attempting to insert a term you want to use in place of a term I specifically used does not make me wrong. It makes you wrong. As to understanding principles: if you recall, this all started when you erroneously posted the four unities were required to create a joint tenancy. Then you waffled back and forth that they were required, then they weren't, then they were, then they weren't and on and on. Your position on the matter still is not clear.

so, what I find funny is you claiming you have any idea what is going on at all in this thread.

---

Tell it to the state Supreme Court who has a different opinion from you. That you continue to find it important to reply and insult is really what is funny. Perhaps you should look for a child somewhere and attempt to intimidate them. You will be far more successful than your attempts here.

All we are saying is give peace a chance...

:wallbang:

Quote:

---

Quoting harrylime

---

All we are saying is give peace a chance...

:wallbang:

---

I accept. I am out.

We will see how others respond.

You have to do me a favor wrlfarlover. Keep babbling. Propane prices are skyrocketing in the midwest and I want to take my hot air balloon out for a cruise and I could use all the hot air you are producing to get me off the ground without me spending a cent on propane.


http://www.ross-on-wye.com/images/pl...ir_balloon.jpg