Here is a recap of the hypothetical set of facts:

Herbert and Wilma, husband and wife, own real estate "for their joint lives, remainder to the survivor of them."  They took title in 1997. 

In 2010, Herbert conveys his half-interest to his sons, Steve and Saul, as co-trustees of Herbert's Living Trust.  Later that same year, Herbert dies.

A few weeks after Herbert passes away, Wilma files an Affidavit of Surviving Joint and Survivorship Tenant to convey Herbert's half-interest to her as the surviving tenant.

At common law, traditionally there were "four unities" required to create a joint tenancy.  Those are the unities of time, title, interest, and possession.  The unity of "time" required that the co-owners must acquire the property at the same time.  The unity of "title" required the co-owners to have the same title to the property; if a condition applied to one, but not another, there was no unity of title.  The unity of "interest" required that each co-owner owns an equal share of the property, regardless of each owner's contribution to the purchase price.  And, the unity of "possession" required that each owner must have an equal right to possess the whole property.  If any of these unities were missing, the joint tenancy was treated as a tenancy in common.

If any of the joint tenants dealt with the property inconsistent with the unities, that owner was treated as terminating the joint tenancy - the joint tenancy was "broken" as to his interest.  For example, if a joint-tenant covneyed his interest to a third-party, the third-party took his interest as a tenant in common. If there were more than two joint tenants, the remaining joint tenants interests were unaffected.  This was the result because the conveyance caused a break in the unity of time between the grantor and the other tenants.

Over time, states adopted statutory forms of survivorship tenancy.  For example, with regard to terminating a survivorship tenancy in Ohio, O.R.C. § 5302.20(C)(2) provides:

A conveyance from all of the survivorship tenants to any other person or from all but one of the survivorship tenants to the remaining survivorship tenant terminates the survivorship tenancy and vests title in the grantee. A conveyance from any survivorship tenant, or from any number of survivorship tenants that is from less than all of them, to a person who is not a survivorship tenant vests the title of the grantor or grantors in the grantee, conditioned on the survivorship of the grantor or grantors of the conveyance, and does not alter the interest in the title of any of the other survivorship tenants who do not join in the conveyance.

Thus, in Ohio, one (or less than all) of the joint tenants cannot "break" the tenancy, and a conveyance from one joint tenant to a third-party creates a conditional interest - if the grantor does not outlive the other joint tenants, the third-party's interest is lost, or detroyed.  

Thus, in this hypothetical (under Ohio law) Wilma owns the property in severalty (as the sole owner).  Had Wilma passed first, Steve and Saul would hold title as co-trustees, just as Herbert had most likely intended.  Other jurisdictions still permit a joint-tenant to unilaterally terminate the joint tenancy by conveying to a third party... but not Ohio.

Interestingly, Ohio did not recognize this common law form of joint tenancy even before the statutory survivorship tenancy was adopted.  In 1929, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that "title to either real or personal property by technical joint tenancy is not recognized in this state; that is to say, joint tenancy, with the necessary attributes of unity of interest, title, time, and possession, and the equally necessary concomitant of jus accrescendi (right of survivorship) is no longer recognized, and wherever the expression 'joint tenancy is found, without any effort to expressly provide for survivorship, it is uniformly construed as a tenancy in common."  In Re Estate of Hutchison, 120 Ohio St. 542 (Ohio 1929).

Instead, what Ohio recognized was the right of the parties to "contract for a joint ownership, including the right of survivorship, where such right is intended, and where the operative words of the grant clearly expresses that intention."   Ohio recognized the right of a husband and wife to contract with each other in 1887.

The problem with the common law joint tenancy was that it potentially violated the Statute of Wills, requiring certain formalities to make a testamentary disposition of property.  If each of the parties intended to make a gift to the other, unsupported by consideration, and if the donor retained control over the property in such a manner as to be able to reclaim it at any time during life, it was considered an invalid testamentary disposition.  The purpose of such a rule was to protect estates from claims of persons asserting gifts and grants to take effect after death.

Ohio viewed the contractual arrangement for survivorship to be irrevocable without the consent and concurrence of the other.  It appears for this reason that even prior to the codification of survivorship, one co-tenant could not unilaterally terminate the survivorship interest of the other.

There is a problem with the law in Ohio, in my humble opinion.  And that is that is contrary what the ordinary person (and some attorneys) intend when they execute a deed to a third-party. Most likely, it was Herbert's intent that the survivorship interest was to be severed by his quit claim deed.  And, that could have been the intent of the attorney who prepared that deed as well.

Law schools (at least the one I went to), do not teach specific state law - they teach general common law, for the most part.  The joint tenancy, with right of survivorship, that I was taught in law school was the common law version that allowed a deed from one co-tenant to sever his interest from the survivorship tenancy.  Clearly not the law in Ohio.

In my opinion, when the laws do not conform to what most people would expect, it creates a dangerous pitfall for the unwary.  This is particularly the case where the laws deal with transactions that do not take effect until after death... when it is too late to correct any defect.  

I believe that the common law is more inline with the expectations of the parties to these types of transactions.  But the fact that Ohio law is so different is a proof that you can't take things for granted.  It is important to know the laws of your state.