9. Co-ownership

Question 1

AG Securities v Vaughan

Answer 1

JT cannot exist unless the ‘four unities’ are present

Question 2

Payne v Webb

Answer 2

In equal shares

Question 3

Fisher v Wigg

Answer 3

To be divided between…

Question 4

Bull v Bull

Answer 4

Purchasers are presumed to take as TICs in equity in proportion to their respective contributions

Question 5

Stack v Dowden

Answer 5

In context of ‘domestic’ properties presumption of TIC arising from unequal purchase contributions will not apply

Question 6

Jones v Kernott

Answer 6

Presumption is that, where ‘home’ is held in joint names, equitable title is also held as JTs, even if contributions unequal

Question 7

Lake v Craddock

Answer 7

Jus accrescendi inter mercatoeres locum non habet – right of survivorship has no place in business

Question 8

Pink v Lawrence

Answer 8

These presumptions can be rebutted by any express declaration to the contrary

Question 9

Re Caines

Answer 9

JT cannot be severed by will

Question 10

Re Draper’s Conveyance

Answer 10

Application to court for order that house be sold and proceeds split equally - this was a notice in writing that severed JT

Question 11

Harris v Goddard

Answer 11

Divorce petition, which made no immediate claim, but prayed (sought) for property adjustment order to be made in future, was not enough to sever the JT

Question 12

In re 88 Berkeley Road

Answer 12

Notice validly served, provided it is SENT to last place of abode, even if intended recipient didn’t actually receive it

Question 13

Kinch v Bullard

Answer 13

Notice validly served if LEFT at last known place of anode, even if intended recipient doesn’t receive it and person severing subsequently changes her mind

Question 14

Williams v Hensman

Answer 14

Three additional ways JT can be severed

1. Act operating on his own share
2. Mutual agreement
3. Mutual conduct

Question 15

Ahmed v Kenrick

Answer 15

Severance held to have occurred when husband sold jointly owned house by forging his wife’s signature on both contract and registered transfer

Question 16

First National Securities v Hegerty

Answer 16

Husband purported to mortgage jointly owned property by forging wife’s signature – held to be a charge on his equitable interest only, which severed JT

Question 17

Re Gorman

Answer 17

Bankruptcy automatically has effect of transferring bankrupt’s assets to T in bankruptcy, thus severing any JT

Question 18

Burgess v Rawnsley

Answer 18

R orally agreed to sell her share to H for £750 but then changed her mind and wanted £1000, nothing agreed at death - held: there was agreement (albeit not in writing and not enforceable) for R to sell share to H for £750 – sufficient to effect severance

Question 19

Gore and Snell v Carpenter

Answer 19

Negotiations regarding each party taking one of two jointly owned homes absolutely don’t amount to a course of dealing such as to suggest that, over the years, parties have treated their interests in property as interests in common and not joint

Question 20

Davis v Smith

Answer 20

Mere agreement to put jointly owned property on market could not sever JT, but here parties had gone further (by e.g. indicating that when the house was sold the proceeds would be divided, seeking legal advice on severance), so there was severance by mutual conduct

Question 21

Carr v Isard

Answer 21

Differences in will between husband and wife (one refers to her ‘share’ of property, the other not) doesn’t support common intention to sever

Question 22

Re Woolnough (Deceased)

Answer 22

Both wills contained clear instructions that life interests in a ‘share’ be given, which was inconsistent with JT – this demonstrated an agreement to hold distinct shares and amounted to severance

Question 23

In Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance

Answer 23

Court refuses order for sale of plot of land in front of owners’ houses, since underlying purpose of contract was to stop it being sold for development

Question 24

Jones v Challenger

Answer 24

Order for sale granted: house acquired as a matrimonial home, so with end of marriage purpose was dissolved and primacy of duty to sell was restored

Question 25

In Re Ever’s Trust

Answer 25

Court refused to order a sale – underlying purpose of trust was to provide home for couple and children for the indefinite future, so it would be inconsistent with this purpose to order a sale

Question 26

The Mortgage Corporation v Shaire

Answer 26

Neuberger J: TLATA had changed the law and the court had greater flexibility in dealing with applications

Question 27

Bank of Ireland v Bell

Answer 27

Interest of secured creditor contributed significantly to court’s decision not to postpone sale

Question 28

Putnam v Taylor

Answer 28

Secured creditor given precedence over other factors, e.g. poor health of husband

Question 29

Dennis v Mcdonald

Answer 29

Court refused to order a sale, but ordered man to pay occupation rent to woman that amounted to half a fair rent for premises

Question 30

In Re Citro (Domenico)

Answer 30

‘Voice of the creditors will usually prevail over the voice of the other spouse and a sale of the property ordered within a short period’

Question 31

Re Mott

Answer 31

Elderly lady who had lived in her house for over 40 years was allowed to remain - sale would be extremely detrimental to mother’s health and agreed to postpone sale until after death

Question 32

Re Raval

Answer 32

Short postponement of an order for sale was allowed where there was a paranoid schizophrenic spouse who could have been seriously affected by a move

Question 33

Re Bremner

Answer 33

Bankrupt suffering from terminal cancer and had months to live – sale postponed for 3 months after death to allow elderly spouse to care for him in their own home during the latter stages of his life

Question 34

Barca v Mears

Answer 34

Order for sale granted in spite of presence of son with learning difficulties - judge accepts narrow approach to ‘exceptional circumstances’ might be inconsistent with ECHR, Art 8

Question 35

Ford v Alexander

Answer 35

Stresses importance of striking a balance between rights of creditors and respect for privacy and home of debtor