Co-ownership Flashcards
jus accrescendi
where one joint tenant dies, their interest in the property is extinguished, meaning the remaining JTS have a larger interest in the property
Hallsbury’s Law of England
‘each JT hold the whole jointly and nothing separately.’
Mee
JTs are in a ‘survivorship game.’
Maddox & Adahan
‘to the outside world JTS and TICS are treated as ‘one unit’’
Bull v Bull (common)
No co-owner can exclude another co-owner of part of property and if they do, liable for trespass.
Dennis v McDonald
exclusion of one co-owner by other co-owners violence entitled them to occupation rent
Jones v Jones
(co-owners are entitled to a share in any rent or profits) one co-owner cannot demand rent off another even if they are occupying the property
O’Connell v Harrison
sisters bought a house in equal shares, JT presumed at common law, court found a TIC in equity as the intention of the parties from other deeds was that
they intended to hold it as TIC
Bull v Bull (creation TIC)
mother and son bought a house, son provided most of the money, became legal owner, she lived in the house with him and his partner, relations broke down, he sought to eject her, Lord Denning held he could not do so as she had an equitable interest as TIC therefore had a right to remain until the property is sold and if so proceeds be divided proportionately to contribution
Burgess v Rawnsley
parties had mutual agreement to sever JT, never formalised it before one party died, surviving JT argued property was hers via survivorship, court found there was a mutual agreement to sever JT. Therefore legal interest was still in JT accruing to the surviving tenant on the rules of survivorship, but the equitable interest was held as tenants in common, with the deceased’s portion on trust for her heirs
Lyall - course of dealing
the way in which property has been dealt with by those concerned
Re Wallis Trusts
T gave property to sons using words of severance making them TICS, also made them residuary legatees as JTs, held they held the property as residuary legatees in JT, but because the dividends arising from the residue were paid to the sons in equal shares and after their deaths to the personal representatives of each, the court severed the JT in equity
Wilson v Bell
evidence the parties always dealt with the property as TICs thus in equity it was severed
Burgess v Rawnsley
L Denning held an expressed intention to severe communicated to other co-owners may suffice
Cawley v Lillis
husb convicted of manslaughter of wife, he was prevented from inheriting under her will, they held property as JTs, thus if ROS strictly applied he would have been sole owner of property – against rule one cannot profit from wrongdoing
Laffoy J
at common law ROS operated and husb was sole legal owner. However, in equity, he was obliged to hold one-half share on a constructive trust for the estate of the deceased wife, the homicide effected a severance in equity
Mee - commorientes
a situation where all of the JTS are killed in a ‘ common disaster’ in circumstances where it is impossible to determine the order of death for the purposes of the right of survivorship.
Bradshaw v Toulmin
‘if two persons, being joint tenants, perish by one blow, the estate will remain in joint tenancy, in their
respective heirs.’
S5(2)
provides where joints tenants die in such circumstances, ‘they shall be deemed to have held the property immediately prior to their deaths as tenants in common in equal shares.’
S5(3)
confirms this will have the effect of severing the JT’s interest to the effect it will form part of his/her estate to be passed onto successors by will or via intestacy.
Re Kennedy
Kearns J held there must be clear and cogent evidence to prove positively the order of death even if the interval was a matter of seconds
