Greenfield v Greenfield (1979) 39 P & CR 570, ChD
Joint Tenants – Severance of Joint Tenancy – Mutual Agreement – Course of Conduct
Facts
Two brothers purchased a house together, and made an express statement that they would be holding the land as joint tenants. Both got married and moved their wives into the house shared between them. For convenience and privacy, the brothers physically divided the house between them building a wall and each occupied one part of the house. When one of the brothers died, the surviving brother evicted his brother’s widow. The widow claimed that the brothers’ joint tenancy had been severed by the partitioning of the house and that this amounted to a course of conduct showing an intention to sever the joint tenancy.
Issues
Was the partitioning of the house sufficient to amount to a course of conduct indicating that the joint tenants had intended to sever their joint tenancy and become tenants in common instead?
Decision / Outcome
The joint tenancy had not been severed. The surviving brother retained his right to survivorship and was entitled to evict his brother’s widow. Whilst the brothers had indeed separated the property physically, this was insufficient to amount to a course of conduct that amounted to a clear suggestion that the brothers had intended to sever their joint tenancy. The physical separation of the property had been done for the sake of convenience, and was not in itself enough to overcome the clear express statement that the brothers had made in providing that they were joint tenants. The parties were aware of the doctrine of survivorship, and mere physical separation did not imply an intention that this was to be disregarded and the rights of a joint tenant surrendered.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Greenfield v Greenfield (1979) 39 P & CR 570. The legal principles described remain good law. The rules governing severance of a joint tenancy — including severance by mutual agreement or course of dealing under the third head in Williams v Hensman (1861) — continue to apply as stated, and no subsequent statutory or judicial development has materially altered the position described. Students should note that the law of severance is now also considered in the context of the Law of Property Act 1925, s.196 (written notice of severance), and that later cases such as Burgess v Rawnsley [1975] Ch 429 and Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 have further developed the surrounding principles, though without undermining the specific point this case illustrates: that physical partition alone, undertaken for convenience, is insufficient to sever a joint tenancy by course of conduct where the parties’ intention to sever is not otherwise clearly demonstrated.
