A joint tenant in California does not need a co-owner’s permission, or a middleman, to end a joint tenancy. In Riddle v. Harmon (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 524, the Court of Appeal held that a wife could break the joint tenancy she held with her husband by signing a deed from herself to herself. As the court put it: “One joint tenant may unilaterally sever the joint tenancy without the use of an intermediary device.” (Riddle, at p. 531.) The rule now lives in Civil Code section 683.2, which adds a recording requirement that could have changed the outcome of Riddle itself.
Why Riddle v. Harmon Matters
The defining feature of a joint tenancy is the right of survivorship: when one joint tenant dies, the other takes the whole property, no matter what the will says. Co-owners who no longer trust each other often want to end that right so their share goes to their own heirs. That comes up between parents and children on the same deed, between former partners, and whenever a co-owner moves a share into a trust. Riddle is the case that made this simple. It is also the backdrop for a question we hear in nearly every partition case involving joint tenants: what happens to my share if I die before the case is over?
The Facts: A Deed, a Will, and Twenty Days
Frances and Jack Riddle owned property as joint tenants. “Several months before her death, Mrs. Riddle retained an attorney to plan her estate.” (Riddle, at p. 526.) She wanted her half to go under her will rather than to her husband by survivorship. Her attorney prepared a grant deed in which Mrs. Riddle conveyed her interest from herself, as joint tenant, to herself, as a tenant in common. “Both the grant deed and will were executed on December 8, 1975.” (Ibid.) “Mrs. Riddle died 20 days later.” (Ibid.)
Mr. Riddle sued the executrix of his wife’s estate to quiet title in himself, the step a surviving joint tenant would otherwise handle with an affidavit of death of a joint tenant. The trial court granted summary judgment for him, ruling that a person cannot deed property to herself and that the joint tenancy was never broken. The estate appealed.
The Old “Strawman” Rule
Everyone agreed that a joint tenant could end the joint tenancy by transferring her interest to someone else, even without the other owner’s knowledge. The problem was the form. Under an old common law rule, a person could not be both the grantor and the grantee in the same deed. In Clark v. Carter (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 291, 295, another Court of Appeal applied that rule to a married couple and held that a joint tenant who wanted to sever had to deed her interest to a third party, a “strawman,” who would then deed it back to her as a tenant in common.
Lawyers worked around Clark all the time, using strawmen and other devices to reach the same result. The rule did not protect the other joint tenant. It only added a second deed.
The Court of Appeal Rejects Clark
The Riddle court traced the no-self-deed rule back to the medieval “livery of seisin,” a ceremony in which the seller handed the buyer a clod of dirt or a twig from the land in front of witnesses. You cannot hand a dirt clod to yourself. But that ceremony had long since disappeared:
“We reject the rationale of the Clark case because it rests on a common law notion whose reason for existence vanished about the time that grant deeds and title companies replaced colorful dirt clod ceremonies as the way to transfer title to real property.”
The court saw no reason to make a joint tenant go the long way around. A joint tenant should be able to “accomplish directly what he or she could otherwise achieve indirectly by use of elaborate legal fictions.” (Riddle, at p. 531.) The court also stressed that it was not expanding anyone’s rights: “Our decision does not create new powers for a joint tenant.” (Ibid.) A joint tenant always had the power to destroy survivorship. Riddle just removed the extra step. The judgment was reversed, and Mrs. Riddle’s half passed under her will. (Ibid.)
The court added that co-owners who truly want survivorship that cannot be undone by one of them can arrange for it through other forms of ownership. A standard joint tenancy is not that arrangement. Either joint tenant can end it at any time, and an oral promise not to sever will not stop it.
The California Supreme Court denied review on May 14, 1980, over the votes of two justices who would have taken the case. Three years later, in Estate of Carpenter (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 709, another Court of Appeal followed Riddle and upheld a severance the other joint tenant never knew about, noting that she would have been no better off if the decedent had secretly used a strawman.
Civil Code Section 683.2 Codifies Riddle and Adds a Recording Rule
The Legislature wrote the Riddle rule into Civil Code section 683.2 in 1984. Subdivision (a)(2) allows a joint tenant to sever without the other joint tenants joining or consenting by “[e]xecution of a written instrument that evidences the intent to sever the joint tenancy, including a deed that names the joint tenant as transferee, or of a written declaration that, as to the interest of the joint tenant, the joint tenancy is severed.”
But the statute did something Riddle did not. It addressed the risk of secret severances that surface only after a death. Under section 683.2, subdivision (c), a unilateral severance does not defeat the other joint tenant’s right of survivorship unless one of two things happens:
- The severance is recorded before death in the county where the property is located; or
- It is signed and notarized no earlier than three days before death and recorded no later than seven days after death.
The Riddle opinion does not say whether Mrs. Riddle’s deed was ever recorded. Under today’s law, that detail would decide the case. She signed the deed 20 days before she died, well outside the three-day window, so unless it was recorded before her death, her husband would take the property by survivorship. Signing a severance deed is no longer enough. It has to be recorded. Our guide to joint tenancy severance after death under section 683.2(c) covers the timing rules in more detail, and our sample deed to sever a joint tenancy shows what the recorded document looks like.
What Riddle Means in a Partition Action
Severance and partition are separate tools, but they often show up together.
Filing for partition does not sever the joint tenancy. Only a judgment does, and only if both joint tenants are alive when it is entered. (Teutenberg v. Schiller (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 18, 22.) In Walters v. Boosinger (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 421, 438–439, a co-owner filed for partition and died before judgment, and the Court of Appeal held that the complaint and answer did not sever the joint tenancy. His co-owner took the whole property. Thanks to Riddle and section 683.2, a joint tenant who files for partition can avoid that result by recording a deed or declaration of severance at the start of the case.
Severance turns joint tenants into tenants in common. How title is held can affect which partition rules apply, including whether the buyout procedure under the Partition of Real Property Act (PRPA) is available. The timing of a severance is a strategy question for your partition attorney.
Severance does not end the co-ownership. After a severance, the owners still own the property together as tenants in common, just without survivorship. (For a court-ordered version of the same change, see Demetris v. Demetris, where a mistaken joint tenancy deed was reformed into a tenancy in common.) If they cannot agree on what to do with it, a partition action or a co-owner buyout is still how the co-ownership ends. A joint tenant’s right to partition cannot be blocked simply because the owners hold title in joint tenancy. (See Lazzarevich v. Lazzarevich.)
Married couples face extra rules. The Riddles were married, but the law for spouses has changed since 1975. Once a divorce is filed, Family Code section 2040’s automatic temporary restraining orders (ATROs) limit what either spouse can do with property, including a joint tenancy. Our post on severance of a joint tenancy after the ATRO explains what a spouse can still do and how it affects a partition action.
Key Takeaways From Riddle v. Harmon
- No consent needed. A joint tenant can end the joint tenancy on her own, without telling the other owner.
- No strawman needed. A deed from yourself to yourself, or a written declaration of severance, is enough.
- Record it. Under Civil Code section 683.2, an unrecorded severance generally will not defeat the other owner’s survivorship rights.
- Your share goes to your heirs. After severance, the owners are tenants in common, and each owner’s share passes by will or trust instead of to the surviving co-owner.
- Partition is still the way out. Severance changes what happens at death. It does not force a sale or divide the property.
For a step-by-step guide, see how to sever a joint tenancy in California. For the differences between the two forms of title, see joint tenants vs. tenants in common, and for how co-owners end up with one or the other, see our post on the escrow vesting worksheet.
Co-Own Property as a Joint Tenant?
If you no longer want your co-owner to inherit your share, or you are ready to end the co-ownership altogether, the order of steps matters. Severing first protects your share. A partition action then ends the co-ownership.
Talkov Law can help. With 12 full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 650 partition actions throughout California, our team handles every step of the process, from severing the joint tenancy through the partition sale and the final distribution of proceeds. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.
.btn-row { display:flex; flex-direction:row; gap:14px; margin:1.5rem auto; flex-wrap:wrap; justify-content:center; width:fit-content; max-width:100%; }
.talkov-btn { display:inline-flex; align-items:center; justify-content:center; text-align:center; gap:10px; border-radius:6px; :16px; padding:16px 28px; text-decoration:none !important; border:none; cursor:pointer; transition:transform 0.18s cubic-bezier(.22,.68,0,1.2), box-shadow 0.18s ease; }
.talkov-btn:active { transform:scale(0.96) translateY(1px) !important; box-shadow:none !important; }
.talkov-btn-orange { background:#F5A623; 1a1a1a !important; font-weight:700; }
.talkov-btn-orange:hover { transform:scale(1.03) translateY(-2px); box-shadow:0 8px 24px rgba(245,166,35,0.5); }
.talkov-btn-dark { background:#1A2B4A; ffffff !important; font-weight:500; }
.talkov-btn-dark:hover { transform:scale(1.03) translateY(-2px); box-shadow:0 8px 24px rgba(26,43,74,0.55); }
.talkov-btn svg { display:inline-block !important; visibility:visible !important; width:20px; height:20px; flex-shrink:0; }
The post Riddle v. Harmon: A Joint Tenant Can Sever by Deeding to Herself appeared first on Talkov Law Partition Attorneys.
Recent Comments