Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a common-law joint tenancy includes a right of survivorship even when no words of survivorship are used in the granting instrument. Peebles v. Peebles, 223 Tenn. 221, 443 S.W.2d 469, 470 (1969) (quoting Jones v. Jones, 185 Tenn. 586, 206 S.W.2d 801, 803 (1947)); Bunch v. Bunch, No. 02A01-9705-CH-00106, 1998 WL 46217, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 1998) (citing Jones, 206 S.W.2d at 803); see also Durant v. Hamrick, 409 So.2d 731, 742 (Ala. 1981) (Adams, J., dissenting) (commenting that “to say ‘joint tenancy with right of survivorship’ is redundant”). If, however, the four unities are not present at the time of the conveyance, the conveyance results, in a.tenancy in common, which does not include a right of survivorship. See Runions v. Runions, 186 Tenn. 25, 207 S.W.2d 1016, 1017 (1948) (<HOLDING>). There are important differences among the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that regardless of whether the property was held as tenants in common or by the entirety the husband was entitled to hold property as a homestead (B) holding a joint tenancy with right of survivorship is created by express language in the granting instrument (C) holding that when a husband first acquired property and then conveyed it to his wife they could not hold the property as tenants by the entirety or joint tenants because the four unities did not coincide so the deed created a tenancy in common with a right of survivorship (D) holding that where deed purports to create tenancy by entireties between two people who are not husband and wife joint tenancy with right of survivorship is created (E) holding husband and wife may hold life estates as tenants by the entireties
Output (English): holding that regardless of whether the property was held as tenants in common or by the entirety the husband was entitled to hold property as a homestead