Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Land Law > CO-OWNERSHIP > Flashcards

CO-OWNERSHIP Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Co-owernship introduction

A

co-owned property is where 2 or more people own the same estate in the same piece of land concurrently, and is held by way of a trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Freehold formalities

A

s1(1) LPA 1925, by deed - s52(1) LPA 1925, requirements for a deed - s1 LP(MP)(A) 1989, registered - re.g land s27 LRA 2002, unregistered land - s4 LRA 2002

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

s34 Trustees Act 1925

A

no more than a max. of 4 legal owners of any property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

s34 LPA 1925

A

legal owners will be the first 4 people named in the conveyance, regardless of how many more people are named in the document

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

s1(6) LPA 1925

A

no person under the age of 18 can hold LT, and LT will be held as a JT as this is the only way of holding it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

s1, 4 and 6 TLATA

A

statutory trust will be imposed where eland owners by 2+ people, LT held as JT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Pink v Lawrence

A

If 4 unities are present, an express declaration is conclusive of an equitable joint tenancy - which will be held in equal shares

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Stack v Dowden

A

alternatively, presumption of equal ET as JT if they’re JT of LT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

AG Securities v Vaughan

A

4 unities - all entitled to possession of the whole of the property, have the same interest in the property with respect to nature and duration, derive their title from the same act of purchase and their interests start at the same time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Bull v Bull

A

If unequal contribution, presumptions of TIC in unequal shares

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Jones v Kernott

A

Bull doesn’t apply in domestic cases, unless intention of TIC shown by all parties in their whole course of conduct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sole legal owner + no express declaration

A

= TIC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Lake v Craddock

A

If property bought as commercial investment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Payne v Webb

A

‘in equal shares’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Heathe v Heathe

A

‘share and share alike’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Fisher v Wigg

A

to be divided between

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Re Kilvert

A

equally

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

If 4 unities not present, but there is unity of possession

A

= TIC (AG Securities v Vaughan)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

s36(2) LPA

A

defines severance by ‘express written notice or other acts or things (Williams v Hensman)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Re Draper’s

A

need not be signed by the severer (wife’s divorce petition asked for immediate sale of house and immediate division of proceeds of sale)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Re Caines

A

must be inter-vivos

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Harris v Goddard

A

no severance found - showed intention as to future, petition of divorce was vague

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Quigley v Masterson

A

severance affected - woman’s application in the Court of protection proceedings during man’s lifetime qualified s written notice. Made it clear that she treated his share as 50p and wanted a valuation for house

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

s196(4) LPA 1925

A

it is sent by registered post and not returned to Post Office - assume that it has been delivered and no need to move it arrived

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

s196(3) LPA 1925

A

if normal post used then would need to prove that notice arrived

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Kinch v Bullard

A

SEVERANCE YES - terminally ill wife posted written notice in letter box. Husband never seen it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Re 88 Berkeley Road

A

SEVERANCE - YES - the other woman knew nothing about it until after first woman’s death. Recorded delivery to property and signed for it herself

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Ahmed v Kendrick

A

S - YES - husband sold jointly owned house by forging wife’s signature

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Penn v Bristol

A

NO S- bc. of fraud

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

First National Securities v Hegarty

A

mortgaged operating on his own share

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Re Gorman

A

bankruptcy - involuntary alienation

32
Q

Gore & Snell v Carpenter

A

NO S - No final agreement, only preliminary, and not a course of conduct. Overall separation not finalised or signed - could be revised

33
Q

Nielson-Jones v Fedden

A

NO S - Memo was not a notice, only authorised husband to sell on behalf of both parties, only distributed a portion of total1k deposit not all of it - MUST BE IRREVOCABLE

34
Q

Greenfield v Greenfield

A

NO S - despite property being physically divided

35
Q

Burgess v Rawnsley

A

YES S - oral agreement, negotiations had gone as far as discussing the price

36
Q

Hunter v Babbage

A

YES S - agreed house would be split unequally, draft order of consent for sale

37
Q

Davies v Smith

A

YES S - mere agreement to put jointly owned property on market NOT ENOUGH - but they agreed that sale proceeds would be divided between them, both had legal advice, had agreed that proceeds divided in balanced way. FOCUS on words/conduct between both parties NOT what was on their minds

38
Q

Carr v Isard

A

NO S - mum and dad each exceeded a will - but difference in wills

39
Q

RE Woolnough

A

YES S - same will, clear instructions

40
Q

s7(3) TLATA

A

trustees have power to physical partition land with consent of Bs

41
Q

Wright v Gibbons

A

JT can acquire TIC’s interest by will and have dual status

42
Q

s6 TLATA

A

trustees have power to sell the land

43
Q

s11 TLATA

A

T have duty to consult all beneficial owners of full and age and give effect to the wishes of the majority (by value) so far as is consistent with the general interest of the trust

44
Q

s10 TLATA

A

if the trust deed requires the consent of 2+ people to the sale - the consent of 2 is enough

45
Q

s12 TLATA

A

Bs have the right to occupy the property

46
Q

s13 TLATA

A

T can apply to exclude Bs from occupying - occupation rent

47
Q

s15(1)(A) intersts of people who created the trust ,Barclays Bank v Taylor

A

must consider intentions of the parties who created the trust if formal express trust

48
Q

Re Buchanan-Wollaston

A

sea view home

49
Q

Re Ever’s

A

husband left family home but wife and kids still hthere - purpose of family home existed until kids of school leaving age 16. Husband did not need money and could live elsewhere

50
Q

Jones v Challenger

A

couple divorced - continuing purpose of family home - NO even if one still wanted

51
Q

s15(1)(c) TLATA

A

the welfare of minors in occupation

52
Q

s15(1)(D) TLATA,

A

the interests of secured creditors

53
Q

Mortgage Corp v Shaire

A

pre-TLATA cases treated with cation as old cases favoured creditors and Neuerberg said they shouldn’t - continuing purpose should be looked at

54
Q

Bank of Ireland v Bell

A

interests of creditors paramount over the family home

55
Q

First National v Achampong

A

bank not to be kept out even though wife, kids (1 disabled) and grandkids lived there

56
Q

Fred Perry v Genis

A

commercial interests to take precedence over family interests

57
Q

Putnam v Taylor

A

voice of creditors prevail regardless of homelessness

58
Q

Dennis v McDonald

A

cohabiting couple bought house as TICs. Had 5 kids, man was violent so woman left with 2 younger kids, man continued to live there with other 3 kids. CA refused order for sale - ordered man to pay occupation rent to woman which was half a fair rent for the property

59
Q

Ali v Hussein

A

co-owner wanted land sold to get back investment. Court postponed sale for some months to let other co-owners buy out the co-owner who wanted to leave

60
Q

Re Gorman - bankruptcy

A

husband went bankrupt, his TIB was entitled to left of the value

61
Q

s306(1) IA 1986

A

bankrupt’s share of joint ET will vest automatically in the TIB to deal with as TIC

62
Q

s305(2) IA 86

A

TIB must realise and distribute the bankrupt’s assets to their creditors within 3y of the bankruptcy (Enterprise Act 02’). This entails applying for a sale of the property under s14 TLATA to realise its value in cash

63
Q

s283(3) IA 86

A

Bankrupt’s LT is unaffected

64
Q

s15(4) TLATA

A

court will have regard to the factors in s33(5)(A) IA: interest of the bankrupt’s creditors, the conduct, needs and resources of the spouse or civil partner of the bankrupt, the needs of any children, all the circumstances except for the needs of the bankrupt - Everitt v Budhram

65
Q

Everett v Budhram

A

exceptional circs. does not include the needs of the bankrupt

66
Q

Re Citro

A

NOT EXCEP. - for wife and children to be homeless or children’s education to be affected - 2 bros went bankrupt, - NORMAL Circumstances -‘melancholy consequences of debt and improvidence’

67
Q

Re Holiday

A

EXCEPTIONAL - husband deliberately made himself bankrupt & creditors didn’t need their money that badly as were large commercial and their money was proceed in the value of the house. Wife’s voice allowed to prevail sale not ordered

68
Q

Re Mott

A

Exceptional- serious mental or physical illness of wife - wife was elderly and unwell and had lived in house for 40year, son had co-owned and went bankrupt, sale postponed until she died

69
Q

Re Raval

A

Exceptional - serious mental illness of wife - wife was a paranoid, schizophrenic, short postpomenet

70
Q

Claughton v Charalmbous

A

Exceptional- wife had renal failure, and severe arthritis (terminal). Sale was postponed

71
Q

Re Haghighat

A

Exceptional - spouse’s child seriously disabled with cerebral palsy, required continuous care, sale postponed for 3y

72
Q

Nicholls v Lan

A

Exceptional - spouse had chronic long-term schizophrenia, order postponed for 18m

73
Q

Re Bremmer

A

Exceptional - bankrupt was terminally ill with cancer, had 6m to live. Courts hung postponement on spouse and said spouse had to be there to care for the bankrupt - sale postponed for 3m after bankrupt died

74
Q

Barca v Mears

A

disruption of child’s educational - NOT EXCEPTIONAL. despite special needs.

75
Q

Donohoe v Ingram

A

Not exceptional - 4 young’s children’s education would have been disrupted, judge said may be room for more generous interpret ion but not here

Land Law (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions