N.Y. Real Property Law § 240-c

Sever Unilaterally by Deed: N.Y. Real Property Law § 240-c

A joint tenant may unilaterally sever a joint tenancy without consent by deed or written instrument recorded in the county prior to the death of the tenant.

Official text N.Y. Real Property Law § 240-c — New York

§ 240-c. Joint tenancy severance. 1. In addition to any other means by which a joint tenancy with right of survivorship may be severed, a joint tenant may unilaterally sever a joint tenancy in real property without consent of any non-severing joint tenant or tenants by:

  • (a) Execution and delivery of a deed that conveys legal title to the severing joint tenant's interest to a third person, whether or not pursuant to an agreement requiring the third person to reconvey legal title to the severing joint tenant; or
  • (b) Execution of a written instrument that evidences the intent to sever the joint tenancy, including a deed that names the severing tenant as the direct grantee of the severing tenant's interest.
  • 2. No severance of a joint tenancy pursuant to subdivision one of this section shall terminate the right of survivorship of any non-severing joint tenant or tenants as to the severing tenant's interest unless the deed or written instrument effecting the severance is recorded, prior to the death of the severing tenant, in the county where the real property is located.
  • 3. Nothing in this section shall limit the manner or effect of:
  • (a) A severance of a joint tenancy pursuant to a written instrument executed by all joint tenants, or pursuant to a written agreement of all joint tenants.
  • (b) A severance of a joint tenancy effected by a deed from a joint tenant to another joint tenant.
  • (c) A severance ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

A joint tenancy with right of survivorship means that when one owner dies, the survivor takes the whole - regardless of what the will says. Section 240-c is about getting out of that arrangement without the other owner's agreement. In addition to any other means of severance, a joint tenant may unilaterally sever by executing and delivering a deed conveying legal title to a third person (even under an arrangement for that person to convey it straight back), or by executing a written instrument evidencing the intent to sever, including a deed naming the severing tenant as the direct grantee of their own interest. The old requirement of a straw man is gone; the owner may deed to themselves.

Subdivision 2 attaches a condition that is the whole risk of the section. No severance under subdivision 1 terminates the right of survivorship of any non-severing joint tenant as to the severing tenant's interest unless the deed or instrument is recorded, in the county where the property is located, before the severing tenant dies. A severance sitting unrecorded in a drawer when the severing tenant dies leaves the survivorship intact - which is precisely the outcome the severance was meant to prevent.

Subdivision 3 preserves the other routes: a severance by a written instrument or agreement executed by all the joint tenants, a deed from one joint tenant to another, and a severance ordered by a court. The section does not touch tenancy by the entirety, the form in which married couples usually hold a home in New York, which cannot be severed unilaterally.

When it applies

  • Two siblings hold a house as joint tenants and one wants their share to pass under their will.
  • Unmarried partners who bought together separate and one wants to end the survivorship.
  • A joint tenant executes a severance and never records it.
  • A family member wants to know whether a deed can be signed without the other owner's consent.
  • An estate discovers after a death that a purported severance was never recorded.

What this section does not say

  • It does not divide the property. Severance converts a joint tenancy into a tenancy in common; it does not partition the land or force a sale.
  • It does not work unrecorded. Survivorship continues unless the instrument is recorded before the severing tenant's death.
  • It does not apply to a tenancy by the entirety between spouses, which cannot be severed unilaterally.
  • It does not decide who has paid what. Contributions, mortgage payments and improvements are separate questions.
  • It does not create a right to buy the other owner out.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

Two siblings hold their late mother's house as joint tenants and no longer speak. One of them wants his half to pass to his own children rather than to his brother.

How the wording applies

A joint tenant may sever unilaterally by executing and delivering a deed to a third person, or by a written instrument evidencing the intent to sever - including a deed naming the severing tenant as the direct grantee of their own interest, so no straw man is needed any more. Subdivision 2 carries the whole risk: no severance terminates the other joint tenant's right of survivorship unless the deed or instrument is recorded, in the county where the property lies, before the severing tenant dies.

How the parties settled it

Each of them severs and records, neither treating it as a hostile act, and the running costs of the house continue to be split exactly as they have been.

Illustrative example

After a death the family finds a signed severance in a drawer that was never taken to the county clerk. The surviving joint tenant says the whole house is his.

How the wording applies

Recording before the severing tenant's death is a condition of the severance working against the survivorship, not a formality that can be made good afterwards. So it turns on the recording date rather than on the date of signature or on what the deceased plainly intended.

How the parties settled it

The survivor pays the estate a sum reflecting what the deceased put into the house, documented from the mortgage and improvement records, and the estate makes no further claim to the title.

Illustrative example

A married couple who own their home together are told by a relative that either of them can sever the survivorship without the other's agreement.

How the wording applies

The section does not touch a tenancy by the entirety, the form in which married couples usually hold a home in New York, and that form cannot be severed unilaterally. So it turns on how title is actually held, which the deed will show - and a severance would in any event only convert a joint tenancy into a tenancy in common, not divide the land or force a sale.

How the parties settled it

They read the deed together and, instead of anything unilateral, sign mutual wills and a short written understanding about what happens to the house if either of them dies first.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 2003 to 2017.

In re the Estate of Wyman, 128 A.D.3d 1157 (2015)

Appellate Division

What the court had to decide

Did the email correspondence between decedent and respondent amount to an enforceable written agreement to sever the joint tenancy under Real Property Law § 240-c(3)(a)?

What it held

The emails did not constitute an enforceable agreement to sever the joint tenancy because they lacked definite material terms, specifically the consideration or price, and therefore did not effect a severance under RPP § 240-c(3)(a).

In the court's words
Accordingly, there was no enforceable agreement to transfer ownership of the property that would have severed the joint tenancy (see Wilson v Ledger, 97 AD3d at 1029; Clifford R. Gray, Inc. v LeChase Constr. Servs., LLC, 31 AD3d 983, 985 [2006]).

Smith v. Bank of America, 103 A.D.3d 21 (2012)

Appellate Division

What the court had to decide

Whether a mortgage given by one joint tenant to a third party without the knowledge of the other joint tenant acts to sever the joint tenancy.

What it held

A mortgage given by one joint tenant does not sever the joint tenancy because New York is a lien-theory state and a mortgage is only a lien, not a transfer of title, and does not destroy the unities or evidence an intent to sever under Real Property Law § 240-c.

In the court's words
Hence, since a mortgage is only a lien, Hassid’s act of giving a mortgage on the subject property did not act to sever the joint tenancy relationship between him and the plaintiff.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

N.Y. General Obligations Law § 5-703 Must Be in Writing: N.Y. General Obligations Law § 5-703 N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 234 DRL § 234: who stays in the house while the divorce runs

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the New York Consolidated Laws.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of N.Y. Real Property Law § 240-c in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in New York.

← All New York law pages