Which statement best describes unity of possession in concurrent estates?

Which statement best describes unity of possession in concurrent estates?

• A. All co-owners hold equal interests
• B. Each co-owner has the right to possess the whole property
• C. Each co-owner must contribute equally to improvements
• D. There must be a written agreement

Answer: (B)

Unity of possession means that every co-owner has the right to use and occupy the entire property, not just a portion that corresponds to their share. In concurrent estates, you don’t limit a co-owner to their fractional slice—the whole property is available for each co-owner to possess. This is true even if the owners hold different shares, such as one owning more than the other. It also means that rights to possession aren’t dependent on equal contributions or a formal written agreement to share possession. So the statement that each co-owner has the right to possess the whole property best captures this idea. The notion of equal shares isn’t required for possession, nor is there a requirement to contribute equally to improvements or to have a written agreement for the right to possess.

Unity of possession means that every co-owner has the right to use and occupy the entire property, not just a portion that corresponds to their share. In concurrent estates, you don’t limit a co-owner to their fractional slice—the whole property is available for each co-owner to possess. This is true even if the owners hold different shares, such as one owning more than the other. It also means that rights to possession aren’t dependent on equal contributions or a formal written agreement to share possession.

So the statement that each co-owner has the right to possess the whole property best captures this idea. The notion of equal shares isn’t required for possession, nor is there a requirement to contribute equally to improvements or to have a written agreement for the right to possess.