There are two types of property ownership under English law, legal ownership and beneficial ownership. The fact that the case in question falls under the second somewhat complicates the problem, as will now be seen through a review of the legal implications of the said property ownership type.
As this is pertinent to both the issue of Jennifer's intended severance and the right of survivorship, it is important to establish that joint tenancy existed.
Joint tenancy, as noted in the preceding, holds that each tenant' has an identical interest in the whole of the property, as determined through the four unities of title, interest, possession and time. Under common law, unity of interest is present despite the unequal financial contributions of both parties because conveyance was to both as "beneficial joint tenants." Unity of title is similarly present as both Jennifer and Clarissa received their interest in Maple Leaf under the same conveyance. The same applies to unity of time since both received their share under the same conveyance in fee simple and their titles were vested at the same time. Further, unity of possession also holds as both parties are entitled to the possession of the whole of Maple Leaf and neither Jennifer nor Clarissa may exclude the other as a joint tenant.
In further affirmation of the fact that the joint tenancy exists, it is important to clarify that nothing in the case study indicates that the conveyance contains ...