Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Land > Co-ownership > Flashcards

Co-ownership Flashcards

1
Q

Trusts of land

A

s1(1)(a) TLATA 1996 - applies to all trusts of land, whenever created

  • if express - s53(1)(b) LPA formalities; if implied no formalities - s53(2) LPA
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Joint Tenancy

A

4 unities must be present (AG Securities v Vaughan)

  • unity of possession
  • unity of interest
  • unity of title
  • unity of time
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Right of survivorship

A

Operates in JT - where one tenant dies, his interest passes automatically and immediately to the surviving joint tenant, not under his will as right of survivorship operate on death, will immediately after death - In Re Caines deceased

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

Tenancy in common

A

Only unity of possession required, though others may be present

Each co-owner regarded as having a distinct undivided share in the land

No right of survivorship

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

Legal Title

A
  • must be held as JT - s1(6) LPA 1925

- there can be no severance of a legal JT to create a TIC - s36(2) LPA 1925

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

Maximum number of legal owners

A

4 - s34(2) TA 1925 - trustees will be the first four names and willing and able to be trustees (18 years and over and of sound mind)

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

Equitable interest - JT or TIC?

A

If any unity missing, it will be a TIC.

If all 4 unities present:

  • express declaration
  • no express declaration, but words of severance in grant
  • no express declaration or words of severance, presumption of a JT unless there is an equitable presumption against a JT
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Express declaration will prevail (inc over equitable presumptions)

A

Pink v Lawrence

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

“share and share alike” - TIC

A

Heathe v Heathe

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

Equitable presumption against JT - purchase monies provided in unequal shares, presumed to be TIC in proportion to contributions

A

Bull v Bull

BUT Stack v Dowden - presumption of a TIC arising from unequal cares will not apply in the context of family properties unless one of the parties can provide evidence to the contract.
Confirmed in Jones v Kernott - presumption that family home will be JT will only be displaced if common intention could justify it in light of their whole course of conduct.

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

Equitable presumption against JT - right of survivorship has no place in business - presumes TIC

A

Lake v Craddock

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

Severance of beneficial JT - in absence of agreement between co-owners, shares arising from severance are equal, irrespective of the proportions in which the joint tenants intially contributed towards the purchase price

A

Goodman v Gallant

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

Severance must occur during tenant’s lifetime; a JT cannot be severed by will

A

Re Caines deceased

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

Severance - written notice

A
  • s36(2) LPA
  • must be given to all the other JT stating the unequivocal and irrevocable intention to sever immediately, either by implication or expressly
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Divorce proceedings coupled with wife’s summons and affidavit demonstrated intention to sever immediately even though not signed

A

Re Draper’s Conveyance

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

Divorce petition seeking property adjustment order in the future was not immediate enough to sever JT. Divorce petition alone insufficient

A

Harris v Goddard

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

Notice must be served on the other JTs

A

Sufficient to leave notice at last known place of abode or place of business - s196(3) LPA

Registered post is ‘left’ at the point it is given to the post master - s196(4) LPA

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

If left at last known abode, it does not matter that the other tenants did not see the letter

A

Kinch v Bullard

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

Notice sent by registered post but letter signed for by person wishing to sever; the other JT knew nothing about the notice until after the death of the other co-owner - severance was effective

A

In Re 88 Berkeley Road

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

Agreement between JTs could not oust statutory rule that notice complying with s36(2) did effect severance

A

Grindal v Hooper

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

Other acts that sever the tenancy in equity - s36(2) LPA

A

Williams v Hensman:

  • act operating on own share
  • mutual agreement
  • course of dealing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Act operating on own share - total alienation

A

Outright disposal of the interest in favour of a 3rd party - must comply with s53(1)(c)

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

severance when H forged W’s signature

A

Ahmed v Kendrick

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

no severance when H forged W’s signature in collusion with purchaser

A

Penn v Bristol and West

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

Act operating on own share - partial alienation

A

Where JT charges/mortgages his equitable interest in the property - First National Securities v Hegerty

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

Act operating on own share - involuntary alienation

A

Bankruptcy automatically transfers bankrupt’s assets to trustee in bankruptcy, severing the JT - Re Gorman

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

Act operating on own share - contract to alienate

A

If JT enters into SP contract to dispose of his interest that will be alienation as equity looks upon that as done which ought to be done - Brown v Raindle

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

Commencement of litigation - issuing of proceedings maybe sufficiently unilateral and unequivocal act to constitute severance

A

But criticised in Nielson-Jones v Fedden as not sufficiently irrevocable

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

Mutual agreement or course of conduct - no agreement had been concluded and negotiations were ongoing - no agreement to sever

A

Nielson-Jones v Fedden

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

Orally agreed to sell share for £750, but then changed mind and wanted £1000. JT died before anything was decided - intention to sever was shown; agreement at any point was sufficient; intention shown through course of dealing

A

Burgess v Rawnsley

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

Unfinalised draft consent order had no effect in itself, but the making of the agreement amounted to severance

A

Hunter v Babbage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Had only agreed in principle but not in detail - insufficient; negotiations were not far enough along to constitute a course of dealing

A

Gore and Snell v Carpenter

33
Q

Correspondence between parties’ solicitors went beyond mere agreement to put on the market, by indicating when house would be sold, how money would be split, both sought legal advice = severance

A

Davis v Smith

34
Q

Property being partitioned did not sever the JR as both parties happy for right of survivorship to continue

A

Greenfield v Greenfield

35
Q

Wife left husband her ‘share’ in her will; husband left her whole property - differences in wills did not suggest common intention to sever

A

Corr v Isard

36
Q

Brother and sister both left ‘share’ in will - agreement to hold distinct share = severance

A

Re Woolnough (deceased)

37
Q

Termination of co-ownership

A

Sale
Partition - trustees have power to partition land, but must have beneficiaries’ consent - s(3) TLATA
Merger - for legal estate, deed; for beneficial interest, s53(1)(c)
Sole surviving JT

38
Q

Overreaching - Registered land

A

If some/all of the beneficiaries are TIC, restriction should be entered on proprietorship section of the register - s40, 42(1)(b) and 44(1) LRA 2002. If no restriction and overreaching does not take place, may be overriding interest if in actual occupation

If JT at equity and in law, nothing is put on proprietorship register.

39
Q

Overreaching - Unregistered land

A

Beneficial interests not registrable at Central Land Charges Registry as they can be overreached
If not overreached, enforceability depends on doctrine of notice
s16 TLATA - where trustees exceed powers, purchaser will obtain land free of equitable interests if he overreaches, provided he did not have notice of the limits of the trustees powers

40
Q

If there is only one trustee, beneficiary can obtain an injunction to restrain the sale until another trustee is appointed

A

Waller v Waller

41
Q

Class F registration

A

Does not protect the interest under the trust, but blocks any dealings on the property by the legally owning spouse

42
Q

Appointment of new trustees

A

Can be appointed:

  • by person in trust deed as being able to appoint (s36(a) TA 1925)
  • by existing trustees (s36(b) TA 1925)
  • by personal representatives of last surviving trustee (ss36(1) + (6) TA)
  • by court in difficult cases (s41 TA)

Trust of land is valid with only one trustee but need two for overreaching -s27 LPA

43
Q

Appointment of new trustee should be made by deed

A

Automatically contains implied vesting declaration, no need for separate declaration - s40 TA

44
Q

Beneficiaries role in new trustees?

A

s19 TLATA - can select, but not appoint, trustees and require existing trustees to retire.

Beneficiaries may only give such a direction if there is no one nominated in the trust instrument for the purpose of appointing trustees AND are all sui juris and absolutely entitled to the property - s19(1)(b) TLATA. They must be unanimous - s19(2)

45
Q

Retirement of trustees

A

Should be by deed; no need for separate conveyance - s40 TA

Trustee cannot retire without simultaneous new appointment without consent of co-trustees - s40 TA

OR

if this will leave just one trustee - s39 TA

A trustee who is also a beneficiary can assign his beneficial interest (s53(1)(c) LPA) but will remain a trustee of the legal estate

46
Q

Functions of Trustees

A
  • trustees have powers of an absolute owner - s6(1) TLATA
  • powers set out in s6 and 7 TLATA
  • must get best possible return from trust property and exercise reasonable care and skill - s1 TA 2000
  • s6(2) TLATA - trustees can convey land to beneficiaries, where they are of full age and capacity and absolutely entitled; even if beneficiaries do not require the trustees to do so
  • s6(3) TLATA - trustees have power to acquire land under s8 TA 2000 as investment/ for occupation by a beneficiary
47
Q

Restriction of trustee’s powers

A

Can be restricted under s8 TLATA by settlor or testator in document giving rise to the trust of land

48
Q

Consent

A

s8(2) - trustees’ powers may be subject to consent of beneficiaries, if so stated by settlor in trust instrument.
- purchaser need only be concerned that consents of any two of them have been obtained - s10(1) TLATA but trustees will be in breach if they fail to obtain consent of all beneficiaries required

Where beneficiary is a minot, consent must be obtained from parent/guardian - s10(3) TLATA

49
Q

Consultation

A

s11(1) - Trustees have a duty to consult beneficiaries of full age ; they must give effect to those wishes, or in case of dispute, to the wishes of the majority by value, but only so far as consistent with the general interest of the trust as decided by the trustees

50
Q

Duty to consult does not apply if:

A
  • excluded - s11(2)(a) TLATA
  • trust created/arose under will made before 1 Jan 1997 - s11(2)(b) TLATA
  • to trustees’ power under s6(2) to transfer land to beneficiaries - s11(2)(c) TLATA

s16(1) - purchaser need not be concerned whether there has been compliance with consultation rules

51
Q

Delegation of trustees’ powers

A

s9 TLATA - all trustees may jointly delegate any of their functions to any beneficiary of full age

Beneficiaries to whom powers have been delegated have same duties and liabilities as trustees, but only trustees can validly receive purchase monies for overreaching.

Delegation must be made by all trustees but may be revoked by any one or more - s9(3) TLATA

Duties of trustees who delegate set out in s9 TLATA - duty of care (s1 TA 2000) applies in deciding whether to delegate - s9A(1) TLATA; trustees must keep delegation under review whilst it continues - s9A(3)

Trustees not liable for acts or defaults of beneficiary unless trustees fails in their duty of care in deciding to delegate/reviewing it - s9A(6)

52
Q

Right to occupy trust land

A

s12+13 TLATA:
Beneficiaries have right to occupy trust land if:
- trust set up to provide land for their occupation
- subsequent to creation of trust, trustees acquired land for their occupation

BUT right not available if land is occupied already or unsuitable for occupation

s13 - where 2 or more beneficiaries have right to occupy, trustees may exlcude or restrict entitlement of any but not all of them; trustees can impose reasonable conditions on the occupying beneficiary and require them to compensate any other beneficiary - Dennis v Mcdonald.

53
Q

Beneficiaries already in occupation cannot be forced to leave without their consent or court approval

A

(Rodway v Landy)

54
Q

s14 TLATA - trustee or anyone with interest in property can apply to court:

A
  • exercise of trustees’ powers
  • need to obtain consent/consult
  • making declaration as to extent of beneficiaries’ interests
55
Q

Court must have regard to matters set out in s15 TLATA:

A
  • intention to person creating trust (only for wills - Barclay v Barclay
  • purpose of trust
  • welfare of any minors who occupy trust land as home
  • interests of any secured creditor of any beneficiary
  • circumstances and wishes of beneficiaries of full age and entitled to interest in possession/wishes of majority by value.
56
Q

4 people bought land between houses to ensure sea view and covenanted not to deal with it without unanimous agreement; one owner wanted land to be sold. Court refused as sale would go against underlying purpose of contract they entered

A

Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance

57
Q

Family home held as JT; court refused to order sale as purpose was to provide home for children. Could reapply when children older

A

Re Ever’s Trust

58
Q

Court granted order for sale of matrimonial home as marriage had ended

A

Jones v Challenger

59
Q

Neuberger J said s15 TLATA changed the law and court now has more flexibility, old case law should be treated with caution

A

The Mortgage Corporation v Shaire

60
Q

Factors now considered beyond mere purpose e.g. interest of secured creditor contributed to sale order

A

Bank of Ireland Home v Bell

First National Bank v Achampong - sale ordered even though wife, children and grandchildren lived there

61
Q

Secured creditor given precedence over factors such as poor health of husband

A

Putnam v Taylor

62
Q

Court may make other orders rather than sale

A

Dennis v Mcdonald - ordered to pay occupation rent

Ali v Hussein - court made order postponing sale to allow other co-owner to try to buy the other out

63
Q

Bankruptcy

A

s306 IA 1986 - assets automatically vest in TIB, who administers assets to pay of creditors - s305(2) duty IA

Severs an equitable JT

64
Q

In bankruptcy creditors’ interests ought ot prevail

A

In Re Citro

65
Q

For bankruptcy, court looks at factors in s335A IA:

A
  • interests of bankrupt’s creditors
  • conduct of spouse in contributing to the bankruptcy
  • needs and financial resources of the spouse
  • needs of any children
  • all circumstances of the case other than the needs of the bankrupt

BUT - after one year from bankruptcy, interests of the creditors outweigh all other factors, unless there are exceptional circumstances (s335A(a))

66
Q

Elderly lady allowed to stay despite son’s bankruptcy as sale would be extremely detrimental to her health - sale postponed until her death

A

Re Mott

67
Q

Short postponement for order of sale where paranoid schizophrenic could have been seriously affected by move

A

Re Raval

68
Q

Bankrupt suffering from terminal cancer and had 6 months to live, sale postponed to allow elderly spouse to care for him in their home during the late stages of his life

A

Re Bremner

69
Q

Spoud of bankrupt was paranoid shizophrenic = postponement of sale

A

Nicholls v Lan

70
Q

Postponement for 3 years as eldest child was seriously disabled and required constant care

A

Re Haghighat

71
Q

Human Rights - ss335A (2) + (3) provide necessary balance between rights of creditors and respect for privacy and home of debtor

A

Ford v Alexander - mild depression of all co-owners not exceptional

72
Q

Matrimonal Causes Act 1973

A

Court has wide discretion to order transfer of property from one spouse to another on breakdown of marriage.

Usual order is a Mesher order where house is transfered to joint names on trust of land for both spouse in shares as court stipulates, with no sale under all children of marriage are at least 17 or stop full-time education, whichever is later

73
Q

Court can dispense with any requisite consent to a sale or to consult parties

A

s14(2) TLATA

74
Q

Interruption to school is not exceptional

A

Re Citro

75
Q

Postponement allowed due to school needs as creditor could wait and would not be unduly affected by postponement

A

Re Holiday

76
Q

“in equal shares” - TIC

A

Payne v Webb

77
Q

‘to be divided between’ - TIC

A

Fisher v Wigg

78
Q

‘equally’ - TIC

A

Re Kilvert deceased

79
Q

Can be TIC and JT in equity at the same time

A

Wright v Gibbons

Land (10 decks)

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