Joint tenancy after a divorce

Short answer, "apparently, yes." In the case of Smolen v. Smolen, 114 Nev. 342, 956 P.2d 128 (1998), the Nevada Supreme Court had this to say: .......................... This court has "long recognized the attributes of the common law joint tenancy, though we have abandoned complete adherence to the requirement of the manner of its acquisition."[1] Mullikin v. Jones, 71 Nev. 14, 24, 278 P.2d 876, 880 (1955). Consequently, the district court's order stating that the property "shall remain in joint tenancy" created a joint tenancy replete with all characteristics attributable to this estate under the common law. One such characteristic is the power of any joint tenant to unilaterally transfer his interest and terminate the estate. The language of the divorce decree does not prohibit future transfer or alienation of the property. Thus, Martin severed the joint tenancy when he conveyed his interest in the Las Vegas residence to the new trust. This transfer not only severed the joint tenancy but also created a tenancy in common between Roslyn and the new Martin Smolen trust. Upon Martin's death, his interest in the Las Vegas property passed through the trust to Jason, rendering Jason a tenant in common with Roslyn. Martin and Roslyn, like all joint tenants, possessed not only an interest in the joint tenancy but also the power to transfer such interest and sever the tenancy. Martin's transfer of his interest in the joint tenancy terminated the joint tenancy but did not violate the common law or the divorce decree. ..................... So, bottom line appears to be that the Decree can call for continuance of a joint tenancy, but that either party may, thereafter, convert it to a tenancy in common.  If you wish to make the property's character more "bullet-proof," you may need additional terms or conditions, and should consult a lawyer for that purpose.