Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Land Law > Co-Ownership & Trusts of Land > Flashcards

Co-Ownership & Trusts of Land Flashcards

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

Williams v Hensman (1861) Topic

A

Method of Severance by common law

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

Williams v Hensman (1861) Principle

A

• 4 ways to sever a joint tenancy at common law
o 1) Operating on one’s own share
o 2) Mutual agreement
o 3) course of dealings
o 4) Homicide (not referred to in the case)

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

Ahmed v Kendrick (1987) Topic

A

Severance at Common Law/ Unilateral Act

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

Ahmed v Kendrick (1987) Facts

A

• Husband and Wife were JTs
• Husband forged wife’s signature to sell the property
• Were they severed?
• Held:
o Sufficient to sever the JT
o Forging the signature is an act of alienation
o They are TC
o Husband only sells his share of the property

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

Ahmed v Kendrick (1987) Principle

A
  • Forging the signature is an act of alienation

- An alienating your share of the property is sufficient to sever the JT

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

Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance (1939) Topic

A

Dispute to sale/ Intention

s. 15 TOLATA

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

Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance (1939) Facts

A

• Neighbours got together and purchased land in front of their houses
• Did not want someone to build on it
• Some neighbours wanted to sell
• Held:
o Purpose supports not to sell
o Intention of purchase is to preserve the land for all of them to benefit

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

Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance (1939) Principle

A
  • Intention of the creation of a trust can be expressly created
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Re Citro (1991) Topic

A

Bankruptcy

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

Re Citro (1991) Facts

A

•C went bankrupt
•The couple separated and the wife lived with the 3 children in the house
•Debt owed exceeded the value of their homes
•Trustees in bankruptcy applied for declarations to sell the houses
•Held:
o Application was allowed
o Financial hardship is not an exceptional circumstance
o Hardship, eviction, relocation do not qualify as exceptional circumstances
o Exceptional means beyond the ‘melancholy consequences’

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

Re Citro (1991) Principle

A

o Normal disruption (home less/schooling) not good enough

• “Melancholy of Bankruptcy is not enough”

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

Edwards v Lloyds TSB Bank plc (2005) Topic

A

Dispute of Sale
s. 15 TOLATA
Welfare of Minors

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

Edwards v Lloyds TSB Bank plc (2005) Principle

A
  • Postponement may be possible if harm to children

* Especially if secured creditor not prejudiced

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

Claughton v Charalamabous (1999) Topic

A

Bankruptcy
Exceptional Circumstances
Physical Illness

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

Claughton v Charalamabous (1999) Facts

A
  • Severe medical needs
  • House was built to accommodate these severe medical needs
  • Bankruptcy sale was postponed indefinitely
  • It is considered an exceptional circumstance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Claughton v Charalamabous (1999) Principle

A

o Illness may be exceptional

• Important for reason why house should remain unsold

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

Re Raval (1998) Topic

A

Bankruptcy
Exceptional Circumstances
Mental Illness

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

Re Raval (1998) Facts

A
  • Mental Illness
  • Schizophrenia
  • Considered an exceptional circumstance
  • 1 year postponement
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Re Raval (1998) Principle

A

o Illness may be exceptional

• Important for reason why house should remain unsold

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

Re Draper’s Conveyance (1969) Topic

A

Form of statutory notice of Severance

s. 36(2) LPA 1925

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

Re Draper’s Conveyance (1969) Facts

A

• An affidavit in support of a divorce petition
• It asked for the property to be sold
• Asked the proceeds of the sale to be divided equally
• Held:
o Sufficient to effect the severance of the beneficial joint tenancy

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

Re Draper’s Conveyance (1969) Principle

A

o Document may not be designed to sever, but the court may find it is implied

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

Nielson-Jones v Fedden (1975) Topic

A

Severance at Common Law
Course of Dealing/Conduct
Narrow Approach

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

Nielson-Jones v Fedden (1975) Facts

A

• Family breakdown
• Negotiations about the home
• Idea, that the house would be sold, proceeds would be used to house the husband
• No intention to make husband sole owner of new house
• Question is whether these course of dealings intend sever JT
• Held:
• No
• The dealings were neutral about their JT
o This dealt with the use of land, not the ownership of proceeds of sale
o Memo was ambiguous about ownership

o Lord Denning thought this was wrongly decided

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

Nielson-Jones v Fedden (1975) Principle

A

Narrow Approach

Depends on the facts, not intention

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

Burgess v Rawnsley (1975) Topic

A

Severance at common law
Mutual Agreement
Leading Case

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

Burgess v Rawnsley (1975) Facts

A
  • Mr H and Mrs R bought house together containing separate flats for them to occupy
  • Misunderstandings – Mr H orally agreed to buy Mrs R’s ‘share’ for £750
  • Mr H died – his executor argued severance; Mrs R survivorship
  • Unenforceable contract to sell (s 40 LPA 1925) – so not act on own share
  • But CA found H and R’s unenforceable agreement of sale indicated common intention to sever: Pennycuick VC (BEST ONE); Lord Denning MR & Browne LJ
  • Mutual agreement therefore implied from agreement to sever
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Burgess v Rawnsley (1975) Principle

A

o Mutual agreement therefore implied from agreement to sever

  • Mutual Agreement can be an informal/oral agreement
    • No need to be written agreement that satisfies s.2 LP(MP)A 1989 because it is just an agreement to sever
29
Q

Harris v Goddard (1983) Topic

A

Form of statutory notice of Severance

s. 36(2) LPA 1925

30
Q

Harris v Goddard (1983) Facts

A

o Request that court exercise it’s discretion under divorce legislation was held to be too vague
o Did not sever

  • Need specific intention to sever
31
Q

Harris v Goddard (1983) Principle

A

o Document may not be designed to sever, but the court may find it is implied

  • Court will not always find that it severs
  • Contradicts RE Drapers Covenyances
32
Q

First National Securities Ltd v Hegerty (1985) Topic

A

Severance at common law
Unilateral Act on ones own share
Mortgage

33
Q

First National Securities Ltd v Hegerty (1985) Facts

A

• Forged signature
• Couple were equitable joint tenants of their home
• Husband raise money on a legal charge by forging his wife’s signature on the document
• Argued that this act severed the joint tenancy by alienation of his interest
• Held:
o Joint tenancy was severed
o The very act of applying for a mortgage loan was sufficient to sever

34
Q

First National Securities Ltd v Hegerty (1985) Principle

A
  • o The very act of applying for a mortgage loan was sufficient to sever
35
Q

Mortgage Corporation v Shaire (2001) Topic

A

Dispute of Sale
S. 15 TOLATA
Secured Creditors

36
Q

Mortgage Corporation v Shaire (2001) Facts

A

• No order of sale but because Mrs S (debtor’s co-owner) agreed to take over the secured creditor’s loan repayments; and debtor only had 25% share (so creditor not prejudiced)

37
Q

Mortgage Corporation v Shaire (2001) Principle

A
  • under TOLATA 1996 no such precedence given to secured creditor’s interests by s. 15
  • No more important than the welfare of children
  • Possible for co-owner to take over loan payments rather than sell the property
38
Q

Bank of Ireland v Bell (2001) Topic

A

Dispute of Sale
S. 15 TOLATA
Secured Creditors
Welfare of Minor

39
Q

Bank of Ireland v Bell (2001) Principle

A
  • Reaffirmed that creditor’s interests ‘powerful consideration’ (Gibson LJ)
  • Co-owner cannot take over loan payments if cannot afford to take over he debtor’s loan
  • Weight/significance of minor depends on how close minor is to majority
40
Q

First National Bank plc v Achampong (2004) Topic

A 
Dispute of Sale
s. 15 TOLATA
Purpose
Welfare of Minors
Secured Creditors
41
Q

First National Bank plc v Achampong (2004) Principle

A
  • Purpose can change over time
  • Ex: Having Kids
  • Matrimonial home becomes family home
  • Minors can be considered grandchildren
  • Insufficient to show presence – need to show how children’s’ welfare will be adversely affected by sale (Blackburne J)
  • Courts will still be very influenced when a secured creditor is involved
    • Make sure the secured creditor is protected
42
Q

Barca v Mears (2005) Topic

A
  • Bankruptcy

- Exceptional Circumstances

43
Q

Barca v Mears (2005) Principle

A

•Normal disruption associated with bankruptcy is not enough to be considered an exceptional circumstance
- • “Melancholy of Bankruptcy is not enough”

44
Q

Lake v Gibson Topic

A
  • Creation of the equitable estate
  • No express declaration
  • Presumption that Equity prefers TC
  • Presumption 2(a)
  • Unequal contribution to the purchase price
45
Q

Lake v Gibson Principle

A
  • Unequal contribution to the purchase price will be presumed to creates a TC in equity
46
Q

Stack v Dowden (2007) Topic

A
  • Creation of the equitable estate
  • No express declaration
  • Presumption that Equity prefers TC
  • Presumption 1 - Equity follows the law
47
Q

Stack v Dowden (2007) Principle

A
  • Presumption 1 - Equity follows the law

•Law says the only form of co-ownership of the legal estate is JT

48
Q

Kinch v Bullard Topic

A

Statutory method of severance (s.36(2) LPA 1925)
s. 196 Effective ways to serve notice
•Registered Post S. 196(4)
•Leaving at last place of abode or business or person served S. 196(3)

49
Q

Kinch v Bullard Facts

A

•Left at the last UK abode/business of person served (s 196(3))
•Wife posted letter (s 36 notice) of severance
•H had heart attack
– wife changed her mind
•W destroyed the letter after delivery but before H received it
•Severance – H’s share passed in his will
•(Obiter) – revocation may have been effective if communicated before notice ‘given’

50
Q

Kinch v Bullard Principle

A
  • Notice by Registered Post is deemed served unless it is returned undelivered
  • S. 196(4)
  • Can serve notice by leaving it at last place of abode or business or person served S. 196(3)
51
Q

Goodman v Gallant Principle

A

Severance of a JT

  • Becomes TC in EQUAL shares
  • regardless of initial contribution

Express Declaration of Trust will override Stack v Dowden

52
Q

Punkkhania principle

A

Aunt and nephew had an express declaration of trust as equal shares in TC

  • Rejected aunt’s claim of intention
  • According to Stack, she was entitled to all beneficial ownership
53
Q

Bathurst v Scarborough Principle

A

Equitable estate

  • Business partners
  • Equity prefers TC
  • Unless JT is expressed
54
Q

Lloyds Bank v Rosset Principle

A

constructive trust

  • 2 ways they arise:
    1) Informal agreement between parties, and the beneficiary acts to his detriment

2) Beneficiary makes a direct financial contribution, and common intention will be inferred

55
Q

Goodwin v Eldridge Facts

A

s. 36(2) notice
s. 196 registered post
- G mailed notice to their shared property
- G signed for it
- died shortly after
- E argued that there was no severance
- Held:
severed
Notice deemed served unless returned undelivered

56
Q

Quigley v Masterson Principle

A

s. 36(2) notice
s. 196 registered post
- Recipient need not agree or personally know about the notice

57
Q

Gould v Kemp Principle

A

Severance
Cannot sever a JT by Will
survivorship operates on death

58
Q

Gore & Snell v Carpenter Principle

A

Severance at common law

  • divorce
  • discussed severance
  • husband died
  • no severance
  • did not amount to an agreement

Narrow approach
Neilson-Jones v Fedden
Greenfield v Greenfield

59
Q

Greenfield v Greenfield Principle

A

Physically divided house into 2 flats
- C had onus to prove severance
No severance

Narrow approach
Neilson- Jones v Fedden
Gore & Snell v Carpenter

60
Q

Davis v Smith Principle

A

Course fo dealing

  • Divorce
  • dealings suggested that they were going to sell the house
  • discussed a s.36 notice
  • wife died
  • severance had occurred

there was evidence to indicate that it was going to happen

61
Q

Re K Principle

A

Unlawful killing
severance at common law
Severs JT on killing

62
Q

Bull v Bull Principle

A

Unequal contributions
Equity prefers TC
Rebutting presumption
Unless expressly state they want a JT

63
Q

Bedson v Bedson Principle

A

Purpose of land can be mixed

64
Q

Jones v challenger Principle

A

s. 15
Purpose
Matrimonial homes ends upon divorce

65
Q

Identification of the Legal and Equitable Estate Cases?

A

Legal

Equitable

  • Stack v Dowden
  • Goodman v Gallant
  • Punkkhania
  • Lake v Gibson
  • Bull v Bull
  • Bathurst v Scarborough

Trust

  • Lake v Gibson
  • Bull v Bull
  • Lloyds Bank v Rosset
  • Stack v Dowden
  • Jones v Kernott
66
Q

Severance Cases?

A

Effect of Severance
- Goodman Gallant

s. 36(2)
- Kinch v Bullard
- Goodwin v Eldridge
- Re Drapers
- Harris v Goddard
- Quigley v Masterson

Common Law
William v Hensman 
Act on ones own share
- Ahmed
- Hegerty 
- Walsh v Lonsdale
- Gould v Kemp

Mutual Agreement
- Burgess Rawnsley

Course of Dealing/Conduct

  • Neilson Jones v Fedden (Narrow)
  • Smith v Davis (Expansive)
  • Greenfield v Greenfield (Narrow)
  • Gore & Snell v Carpenter (Narrow)

Unlawful killing

  • Re K
  • Dunbar v Plant
67
Q

TOLATA Cases/Sections?

A

Pre- TOLATA Occupation

  • Bull v Bull
  • Boland
  • Flegg

S. 15
Intention
- Re Buchanan-Wollaston Conveyance

Purpose

  • Bedson v Bedson
  • Achampong
  • Jones v Challenger

Welfare v Minors

  • Rawlings v Rawlings
  • Achampong
  • Bank of Ireland v Bell

Secured Creditors

  • Bank of Ireland v Bell
  • Edwards v Lloyds Bank
68
Q

Bankruptcy Cases?

A
  • Charalamabous
  • Re Raval
  • Re Citro
  • Barca Mears

Land Law (10 decks)

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