12. B Joint tenancy is a form of co-ownership in which the joint tenants have the right of survival. This means that upon the death of one joint tenant, the others receive equal shares in her interest. When Marion died, Harold and Wilhemina received equal shares of her interest. The joint tenancy of Harold and Wilhemina continued, but each held a one-half interest in the whole instead of a one-third interest. Joint tenants may convey their interests inter vivos without each other’s consent, but a joint tenant’s grantee takes as a tenant in common with the remaining owners. Thus, upon Wilhemina’s conveyance to Bernard, Bernard became a tenant in common with a one-half interest; and upon Harold’s conveyance to Charles, Charles became a tenant in common with a one-half interest.
A is incorrect because as a joint tenant, Marion could not effectively pass her interest by will. Since a conveyance by a joint tenant makes the grantee a tenant in common, neither Bernard nor Charles received a joint tenancy in any part of the estate. C is, therefore, incorrect. D is incorrect for this reason, and because Allan received no interest at all under Marion’s will.
13. D If leased realty is taken by eminent domain, the leasehold and the reversion merge in the taker, the leasehold is terminated, and the obligation to pay rent ceases. Since both the lessor and the lessee have had something of value taken for public use, each is entitled to receive just compensation for what s/he has lost. The lessor is entitled to receive the value of the leased premises (including the value of rent to be received) minus the value of the leasehold interest which he has already conveyed. The lessee is entitled to receive the value of the leasehold. If not for the condemnation, however, the lessee would have been required to pay rent in order to enjoy the benefits of her leasehold. Since the condemnation terminates that obligation, the rent which the lessee otherwise would have been required to pay should be deducted from the value of her leasehold.
A is incorrect because the taking terminates the leasehold, and with it, the obligation to pay rent. The Rule Against Perpetuities provides that no interest is good unless it must vest if at all within a period of time measured by a life or lives in being plus twenty-one years. Since a lessee’s interest in leased premises vests at the moment the lease is executed, the Rule Against Perpetuities is inapplicable to it. B is, therefore, incorrect. Since the condemnation terminates Teeter’s obligation to pay rent for the balance of the lease term, allowing her to keep the entire $30,000 would result in her receiving more than she has actually lost. For this reason, C is incorrect.