Giving an interest in property to another person can be much more complicated than it first appears.

When a person (`the Grantor') decides to transfer ownership in property to another person, he must decide how he and the recipient of the gift (`the Grantee') will hold the property after the fact.

This decision is typically influenced by the Grantor's objectives, which most often include issues such as maintaining general control over the property, maintaining rights of occupation and maximising stamp duty savings.

A voluntary conveyance of real property can be structured in a number of ways to address these kinds of issues, but there are three basic options available to the Grantor: Transferring the property in its entirety without retaining any form of interest or share; Transferring an interest or share following which the Grantor and the Grantee will hold the property as either tenants in common or joint tenants; or Treserving a life interest in the property and transferring a remainder interest.

The first option is generally considered the least attractive because the Grantor, having not retained any interest in the property, will be unable to exercise any control over it once the voluntary conveyance has been completed.

He will have parted with all of his rights in respect of the property, including his right of occupation.

Meanwhile, the Grantee will be placed in a position where he can force the Grantor to either pay rent or vacate the property.

Despite its drawbacks, the Grantor may well be comfortable with this arrangement if the property being conveyed is not his principal residence and he in fact owns other property.

The second option allows both the Grantor and the Grantee to enjoy ownership, control and occupation of the property simultaneously.

This works well if the Grantor is comfortable with the idea of co-operating with the Grantee in respect of decisions involving the property, including rights of occupation and possibly entitlements to rent.

If, after choosing the second option, the Grantor decides that he and the Grantee should hold the property as joint tenants, the rule of survivorship will apply.

This means that when one of them dies, the survivor will automatically own the property outright.

This structure can be attractive in situations where the Grantor has only one child whom he wishes to benefit. However, it is less attractive where he has more than one child to consider because the rule of survivorship will result in absolute ownership by the child who lives the longest.

If, on the other hand, the Grantor opts to hold the property with the Grantee as tenants in common, the rule of survivorship will not apply.

When a tenant in common dies, his share in the property forms part of his estate. As such, it is capable of being passed to his heirs or beneficiaries in accordance with the laws governing inheritance.

Tenancies in common are appropriate in situations where the Grantor has two or more children whom he wishes to benefit, and particularly so if the property comprises more than one dwelling unit and is thus capable of providing separate living space for each of his children.

Where the Grantor retains a life interest and conveys a remainder interest to the Grantee, the Grantee will automatically own the property outright upon the death of the Grantor.

This option is generally considered as providing the Grantor with a maximum amount of control over the property because it gives him the right to collect all rents and arguably, to dictate who should occupy the property during his lifetime.

However, the Grantor cannot transfer title to the property by way of mortgage, conveyance, lease or otherwise without the Grantee's consent and participation.

For this reason, the perception of substantial control, which is often associated with this option, is somewhat misleading.

Where a Grantor reserves a life interest and conveys remainder interests to more than one Grantee, it will be necessary to decide how the Grantees will hold their remainder interests.

Once again the choices include a joint tenant relationship or a tenant in common relationship. The same considerations outlined above in respect of the second option will apply.

Structuring a voluntary conveyance in a manner that addresses the Grantor's objectives, is a potentially complex exercise.

The options outlined above, together with other options and the various stamp duty ramifications, will require careful consideration by the Grantor and his attorney.

Quite often a voluntary conveyance will need to be dealt with as part of a larger estate planning exercise.

Attorney Scott Swainson is a member of the Property Department at Appleby Spurling & Kempe. Copies of Mr. Swainson's columns can be obtained on the Appleby Spurling & Kempe web site at www.ask.bm.

This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.

Before proceeding with any matters discussed here, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.