Legal Definitions - non tenent insimul

non tenent insimul is a historical legal defense, originating from Latin, meaning "they do not hold together." In the context of a partition action—a lawsuit initiated to divide jointly owned property—this plea was used by a defendant to deny that they held the property in joint tenancy with the plaintiff. Essentially, the defendant would assert that their ownership interest was separate or distinct from the plaintiff's claim of joint ownership, thereby challenging the fundamental basis for the partition action as presented.

Here are some examples illustrating this concept:

• Example 1: Inherited Family Farm

  Two distant cousins, Sarah and Tom, are listed on an old deed as co-owners of a family farm. Sarah wants to sell the farm and divide the proceeds, initiating a partition action based on what she believes is a joint tenancy. Tom, however, argues that while they both have an interest, their ownership was always intended to be a tenancy in common, where each owns a distinct, undivided share that can be passed down separately, rather than a joint tenancy where the survivor inherits everything.

  Tom's defense, asserting that their ownership structure is not a joint tenancy as claimed by Sarah, would historically be expressed as non tenent insimul. He is denying that they "hold together" in the specific manner (joint tenancy) that Sarah's partition action presumes.

• Example 2: Disputed Commercial Property

  A developer, Mark, files a partition action against his former business associate, Lisa, seeking to force the sale of a commercial building they co-purchased years ago. Mark's claim is based on the assumption of a joint tenancy. Lisa, however, presents evidence that their original agreement and subsequent actions established a different form of co-ownership, perhaps a partnership interest or a tenancy in common, where each party had specific rights and responsibilities that preclude a simple joint tenancy partition.

  Lisa's argument that their ownership arrangement is not a joint tenancy, and therefore the property should not be partitioned under that assumption, aligns with the historical plea of non tenent insimul. She is denying the specific "holding together" relationship that Mark's lawsuit is founded upon.

• Example 3: Ambiguous Land Grant

  In a historical context, two individuals, Elias and George, received a land grant from a colonial government. Years later, Elias's descendant initiates a partition action, claiming a joint tenancy and seeking to divide the land. George's descendant responds by producing documents suggesting that the original grant, while naming both, actually allocated separate, distinct parcels to Elias and George, or created a tenancy in common, meaning they never truly "held together" as joint tenants over the entire estate.

  George's descendant's defense, challenging the premise that Elias and George held the entire land grant as joint tenants, would be an instance of non tenent insimul. They are asserting that the nature of their ancestors' ownership was not a joint tenancy, thus denying the fundamental basis for the partition action.