When two or more people buy property together, they have to choose how they hold it. The choice is made on a form, in the middle of a purchase, and it is usually explained in about a sentence.
It decides what happens to the property when one of them dies, and it overrides the will.
The two ways
Joint tenancy. The owners hold the whole property together, without distinct shares. When one dies, their interest passes automatically to the surviving owner or owners. This is the right of survivorship, and it happens by operation of law: no will, no probate, no distribution.
Tenancy in common. Each owner holds a defined share, which can be equal or unequal. When one dies, that share forms part of their estate and passes under their will, or under the intestacy rules if there is no will.
The default is joint tenancy
Under the Land Titles Act, in every instrument affecting registered land, co-owners claiming under the instrument hold as joint tenants unless they are described as tenants in common. Where they are described as tenants in common, the shares have to be specified in the instrument, and in the absence of anything to the contrary they are presumed entitled in equal shares.
So the position you end up in by saying nothing is joint tenancy, with survivorship. That is often what a married couple wants. It is frequently not what siblings, business partners, unmarried couples, or a parent helping an adult child with a deposit want, and none of them are told.
Survivorship beats the will
This is the point people miss, and it is the reason the choice matters.
A joint tenant’s interest does not pass under their will. If a man owns a flat as a joint tenant with his second wife and leaves “all my property” to his children from his first marriage, the flat goes to his wife regardless. The will operates on the estate, and a joint tenancy interest never enters the estate.
The same fact is a benefit when the survivorship is what you want. There is nothing to distribute, so the surviving owner is not waiting on a grant of probate to deal with the property. See probate for what that process involves otherwise.
Where the manner of holding and the will point in different directions, the manner of holding wins. Which is why the two should be reviewed together rather than years apart. Our will writing page covers the other half.
Unequal contributions
Where two people contribute unequally, a tenancy in common with shares matching the contributions is usually the honest structure, and it is written into the transfer at the time.
A joint tenancy makes no distinction. Someone who put in 80% of the money and someone who put in 20% hold the same undivided whole, and on death the survivor takes it all regardless of who paid.
That can be perfectly deliberate. It should not be accidental, and it should not be the result of a form filled in quickly.
Severance: one owner can do it alone
A joint tenancy can be converted into a tenancy in common. This is severance, and the point that surprises people is that it does not require the other owner’s agreement.
Under the Land Titles Act, any joint tenant may sever by an instrument of declaration in the approved form, and by serving a copy of it on the other joint tenants personally or by registered post. On registration, the declarant holds as tenant in common with the others, in a share equal in proportion to each of them.
The statute is also expressed to be without prejudice to the general rules of law on severance, so other routes exist.
Practical consequences worth knowing.
You can protect your share without a fight. A person in a deteriorating relationship, or facing a difficult situation, can sever unilaterally so that their share passes under their will rather than to the other owner.
And the same can be done to you. Severance is effective without your consent. You should be told, because service is required, but it changes the position on death and it is worth understanding that it can happen.
A tenancy in common can be converted back, where the co-owners hold in equal shares and jointly declare that they will hold as joint tenants.
The practical checks
CPF. Where CPF savings were used, the refund obligations on a sale or transfer follow their own rules and are not affected by the manner of holding. Factor them in before assuming a figure.
HDB flats are subject to HDB’s own eligibility and ownership rules, including on changes to the manner of holding and on transfers between owners. Confirm the position with HDB before committing to a plan.
Mortgages. Co-owners are typically jointly and severally liable to the lender whichever way title is held. Changing the manner of holding does not change who owes the bank.
Stamp duty. A transfer of an interest between co-owners can attract stamp duty, including ABSD depending on the parties and the properties held. Anything involving a transfer of share should be checked against the duty position before it is done, not after. See stamp duty when buying property.
Which to choose
There is no correct answer, only a fit.
A joint tenancy suits owners who want the survivor to take the property automatically and without formality. Most married couples buying a matrimonial home.
A tenancy in common suits unequal contributions, second marriages and blended families, siblings or friends buying together, parents helping a child onto the ladder, and anyone who wants their share to go where their will sends it.
If you are buying now, it is worth ten minutes. If you bought years ago and your circumstances have changed since, it is worth checking what you actually hold, because a great many people are not sure.
Where this sits
We deal with this on every co-ownership purchase as part of residential conveyancing, and it belongs in the same conversation as a will and, where relevant, a lasting power of attorney.