TTTBE #9: Early Answer for Patrons (Patreon)

The answer to the question was (D) -- that the second cousin became the sole owner of the estate upon the death of the first cousin due to the right of survivorship.  This requires you to know the legal definition of a "joint tenancy," which is really, really tricky.

Sadly, Thomas got this question incorrect, and is now 6-for-9 (66.7%), breaking his five-question winning streak.  Noah didn't post his answer publicly.   Some of our lawyer listeners got this question wrong.

For the first time in a while, we had mutiple people guess each of the incorrect answers.

Answer (A) was that the law presumes cousin's assent to the lien on the property; that's just wrong.  We talk about this a little bit on the show, but it's up to the lender to decide whether it will take as security a lien on a joint tenancy against only one of the joint tenants; there are economic reasons for some lenders to do so.

Answer (B) was that the joint tenancy was broken when the first cousin put the lien on the property; that's also not correct.  A judgment note given by one joint tenant on his interest in the property does not sever the joint tenancy.

Thomas's answer, (C), was that the judgment lien was never valid.  That's also not correct.  When the second cousin exercised his right of survivorship and became the sole owner of the estate (upon the death of the first cousin), there legally became no interest left for the lender to attach because the note was only in first cousin's name. The property right of the joint tenant is extinguished at the moment of that joint tenant's death. While he was alive, the judgment existed as a potential lien on his joint tenancy interest in the real estate. Upon his death, his interest ceased to exist and along with it the potential lien of the judgment note.

This question was idiotically hard, and stay tuned for another tough question when Question #10 drops along with Friday's Epsiode 42.  We hope you enjoyed playing along with TTTBE; please keep playing!