Which grantors would have acquired fee title under a deed from an unmarried sole record owner conveying to Meredith and Derek?

Which grantors would have acquired fee title under a deed from an unmarried sole record owner conveying to Meredith and Derek?

• A. Meredith And Derek And To Their Heirs And Assigns
• B. Meredith And Derek
• C. Meredith And Derek Absolute
• D. Meredith And Derek And To Their Heirs

Answer: (A)

The key idea is how a deed to two grantees should vest fee simple ownership so that both recipients hold full title and can pass it on. When a sole, unmarried owner conveys to two people, the usual, fully transferable form is to say the property is given to those two grantees “and to their heirs and assigns.” That language creates a fee simple estate in both Meredith and Derek and explicitly allows their heirs or anyone they subsequently transfer to (assigns) to take the property as well. It signals complete ownership with perpetual transferability. Other wordings fall short for one reason or another. Saying “to Meredith and Derek” without the heirs and assigns language can be read as creating a co-ownership—often a tenancy in common—without clearly tying the estate to perpetual heirs or transferees. Using just “Absolute” isn’t a standard vesting form to guarantee the heirs and assigns pathway. And “to their heirs” omits the right of future transfers by assigns, which is narrower than needed for a true fee simple grant to two grantees.

The key idea is how a deed to two grantees should vest fee simple ownership so that both recipients hold full title and can pass it on. When a sole, unmarried owner conveys to two people, the usual, fully transferable form is to say the property is given to those two grantees “and to their heirs and assigns.” That language creates a fee simple estate in both Meredith and Derek and explicitly allows their heirs or anyone they subsequently transfer to (assigns) to take the property as well. It signals complete ownership with perpetual transferability.

Other wordings fall short for one reason or another. Saying “to Meredith and Derek” without the heirs and assigns language can be read as creating a co-ownership—often a tenancy in common—without clearly tying the estate to perpetual heirs or transferees. Using just “Absolute” isn’t a standard vesting form to guarantee the heirs and assigns pathway. And “to their heirs” omits the right of future transfers by assigns, which is narrower than needed for a true fee simple grant to two grantees.