Drafting survivorship deeds continues to be a concern


Pay attention to tricky South Carolina law!

This blog has addressed the issue of drafting survivorship deeds previously. This issue comes back up today because the South Carolina Bar’s Real Estate Practices Section’s listserv discussed this issue, in part, last week.

The thread began with a question about whether a tenancy in common with a right of survivorship is a recognized estate in South Carolina. I believe that the concern arose from some drafting liberties taken by attorneys with these deeds. In my opinion, to create a survivorship deed in South Carolina, the drafter should follow the case or the statute exactly. And it is my opinion that if the drafter follows the case or statute exactly, then a valid survivorship estate is created, and that estate will avoid probate for the property in question at the first death.

Let’s take a look at the case and the statute.

dee house

More than a decade has elapsed since our Supreme Court surprised dirt lawyers with Smith v. Cutler,* the case that told us there were already in place two survivorship forms of ownership in South Carolina. We apparently missed that day in law school! These two forms of ownership are joint tenancy (which we knew and loved) and tenancy in common with an indestructible right of survivorship (which slipped by us somehow). This is a mini-history lesson about how we got to this state of the law and a reminder for dirt lawyers to carefully draft deeds.

Under the common law in South Carolina, tenancy in common is the favored form of ownership. A deed to George Clooney and Amal Clooney (whether George and Amal are married or not) will result in a tenancy in common. At the death of George or Amal, the deceased’s fifty percent interest in the property will pass by will or intestacy laws. Joint tenancy was not favored in South Carolina, and there was no tenancy by the entirety that would have saved the property from probate (and creditors) for a married couple.

A rather convoluted 1953 case** interpreted a deed that intended to create a tenancy by the entirety as creating a shared interest in property between husband and wife referred to as a tenancy in common with an indestructible right of ownership. This is the case that the Smith v. Cutler Court referred to as creating the form of ownership we missed.

It’s not technically true that all of us missed this form of ownership. Some practitioners did use the language from the 1953 case to create a survivorship form of ownership. The magic language is “to George Clooney and Amal Clooney for and during their joint lives and upon the death of either of them, then to the survivor of them, his or her heirs and assigns forever in fee simple.”  Other practitioners routinely used the common law language: “to George Clooney and Amal Clooney as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common.”

Conveying title from a person to himself and another person establishing survivorship was not possible in South Carolina prior to 1996 because the old common law requirement of unities of title could not be met. To create a survivorship form of ownership, the property owner conveyed to a straw party, who would then convey to the husband and wife, complying with the unities of title requirement and establishing survivorship.

A 1996 statutory amendment to §62-2-804 rectified this problem by providing that a deed can create a right of survivorship where one party conveys to himself and another person. The straw party is no longer needed. This statute was given retroactive effect.

In 2000, our legislature added §27-7-40, which provides that a joint tenancy may be created, “in addition to any other method which may exist by law” by the familiar words “as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common”.  The statute addresses methods for severing joint tenancies which typically results in a tenancy in common. For example, unless the family court decides otherwise, a divorce severs a joint tenancy held by husband and wife, vesting title in them as tenants in common.  A deed from a joint tenant to another severs the joint tenancy. A conveyance of the interest of a joint tenant by a court severs the joint tenancy.

Following the enactment of §27-7-40, most practitioners used the language set out in the statute to create a joint tenancy, “as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common.” Five years later, Smith v. Cutler required us to examine our drafting practices with fresh eyes. The court held that a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship is capable of being defeated by the unilateral act of one tenant, but a tenancy in common with an indestructible right of survivorship is not capable of being severed by a unilateral act and is also not subject to partition.

Real estate lawyers in the resort areas in our state are often asked to draft survivorship deeds because couples from other states are accustomed to tenancy by the entirety. Until Smith v. Cutler, most practitioners did not believe different estates were created by the different language commonly in use. We believed joint tenancy was created in both cases.

Now, clients should be advised about the different estates and should choose the form of ownership they prefer. I’ve discussed this issue with many lawyers who advise married couples to create the indestructible form of ownership under the case. Others who seek survivorship are often advised to create joint tenancy under the statute.  I see many deeds from the midlands and upstate that use the traditional tenancy in common form of ownership. I’ve heard estate planners prefer tenancy in common so the distribution at death can be directed by will. Lawyers who draft deeds for consumers need to be aware of and need to address the various forms of ownership with their clients.

One final thought on the survivorship issue in South Carolina. Do we now have a form of ownership that protects property from creditors of one of the owners? If a tenancy in common with an indestructible right of survivorship is not subject to partition, then it may not be reachable by the creditors of one of the owners. Let me know if you see a case that makes such a determination. It would be an interesting development.

If anyone on the listserv has different opinions from those stated here, I would love to hear them. The real estate bar in South Carolina would love to hear them, too!




*366 S.C. 546, 623 S.E.2d 644 (2005)

**Davis v. Davis, 223 S.C. 182, 75 S.E.2d 45 (1953)

14 thoughts on “Drafting survivorship deeds continues to be a concern

    • It’s interesting that you say that. I remember receiving numerous calls from lawyers, mostly coastal lawyers, who asked the same thing when Smith v. Cutler was decided. My not very popular opinion was (and is) that the different estates should be explained to clients, and clients should decide. I got many responses to the effect that explaining takes too much time or that clients would ask for the lawyer’s opinion after the explanation. I’ve heard several practitioners say their default position is to create TICROS for married couples and JTROS for all others requesting survivorship. That maybe a good default position.

      What do you think?


  1. I think that the TICROS more closely resembles the TBE that is available to married couples in FL (and other states) and should provide some creditor protections otherwise unavailable through TIC ROS, since it can be defeated by one of the tenants.


  2. Hailyn Williamson

    S.C. Code Ann. §27-7-40(b) gives guidance for what to do when one of the joint tenants dies in a JTROS. What do you do when one of the tenants dies in TICROS–file the death certificate with the Register of Deeds, or create a new deed with just the surviving tenant as grantee?


  3. Rebecca Seibert

    I used to practice RE law but it’s been a while, and now I practice family law as well as some probate and estate planning. Today someone came in whose wife recently passed away intestate. He told me that he and his wife owned their property as JTROS, so to confirm, I pulled the deed. The deed states both spouses’ names as grantees “for and during the term of their natural joint lives, and upon the death of either, the remainder to vest in the survivor thereof, his or her heirs and assigns”. In my opinion, this resembles the “magic language” from the 1953 case. I have always seen the 2000 statute language, so I googled 27-7-40 to find commentary on it and found this very informative post! (Thank you!) I was curious what you thought about the quoted language. For our client, JTROS means the difference between probating a small estate that can be closed very quickly vs probating a regular estate that has to remain open for 8+ months (plus more in attorney’s fees, and I love it if I can get a quick, relatively inexpensive result for a client). Additionally, I don’t want to create title issues down the line, either, since time usually makes these things harder to “fix” (and I speak from experience on that front). Thank you!


  4. Francesca Macchiaverna

    I have situation similar to Rebecca’s mentioned above. The 1999 deed is titled “Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship” and has both spouses’ names as grantees “for and during their joint lives and upon the death of either of them, then to the survivor of them, his/her heirs, successors and/or assigns forever, together with every contingent remainder and right of reversion”. While the deed predates the enactment of Sec. 27-7-40, I think the language in the deed is substantially similar to the 1953 case and creates survivorship. Is filing the death certificate of the deceased joint tenant sufficient under Sec. 27-7-40(b) or should an affidavit from the surviving spouse also be filed to provide further clarity in the chain of title? What are your thoughts?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s