In Alexander v. Boyer, 253 Md. 511, 520, 253 A.2d 359 (1969), two sisters held a piece of farmland in joint tenancy. Id. at 513-14. They entered into a contract to sell a portion of the land to a third party, Levine, contingent upon rezoning of the land for a townhouse development. Id. at 515. Under the contract, if Levine did not successfully obtain the rezoning, he would have the option either to purchase the land at the contract price, or to void the contract, in which case the sisters would return his deposit if he had made bona fide efforts to obtain the rezoning. Id. at 515-16. Levine chose not to purchase. Id. at 516. In a subsequent lawsuit, it was determined that he was not entitled to the return of his deposit. Id. Thereafter, one of the sisters died, survived by her husband, whom she named as her sole devisee. Id. She was followed in death by the second sister, who died intestate, leaving her husband as her only heir. Id. The husband of the predeceased sister sued his brother-in- law, arguing that the contract with Levine (among other transactions) had severed the joint tenancy, converting it to a tenancy in common, in which the widowers held equal half shares as the heirs of their respective wives. Id. at 516-17. The brother-in-law responded that the joint tenancy had never been terminated, and thus he had complete ownership of the property as the sole heir of his wife, the last surviving joint tenant, who had acquired complete ownership via right of survivorship upon her sister's death. Id. at 517. The Alexander Court reasoned that the option contract could not "in itself, result in a termination of the joint tenancy if the joint tenancy had existed on the date of the agreement." Id. at 521.