Concurrent Ownership Flashcards
Leigh v Dickson
Facts: P and D are tenants in common of house. D has done repairs paid for by D. P suing D for owed rent, D counterclaims that P must pay fair share in repairs.
Held: P wins. Voluntary payment by D which P was forced to accept.
Reasons (Sir Brett MR):
- If was at the express request of A, of course B can recover
o Even if A doesn’t request you pay money, but requests you do something which imposes B to pay money
- If B liable as the agent of A, B can recover
- Mere voluntary payment by B for benefit of A, can’t recover
o If however A has the liberty to choose, and he accepts B’s benefit, then B can recover
o If A is forced to accept, B can’t recover
- Under which head does this case apply? It’s a voluntary payment, and it’s an advantage which P can’t possibly reject, and on necessity is forced to accept.
Cotton LJ
- I can see no ground for saying that a common law action by one tenant in common would lie to recover money expended in repairs by his co-tenant, or that equity would allow any such claim.
- Only remedy would be in a suit for partition, as long as they remain living together, no recovery
Mastron v Cotton
Facts: P and D were ex-spouses. P husband bought house, they jointly lived there for 4 months. P left, D wife occupied rent free but paid interest and part of principal of mortgage, taxes, and repair costs.
History: P sued for partition, D sought agreement that because she agreed to get the divorce in Canada, P would give her his interest in the house. TJ ruled that agreements not proven, P and D joint tenants, P entitled to partition/sale. D found issue that TJ gave P and D equal interests in house.
Held: D wins: entitled to take account for all mortgage payments before and after divorce
Reasons:
- While the general rule is that one joint tenant, unless ousted by his co-tenant, may not sue another for use and occupation, it seems clear that when the joint tenancy is terminated by a court order for partition or sale, the Court may in such proceedings make all just allowances and should give such directions as will do complete equity between the parties
o These are equitable allowances, so in certain circumstances they may not be made (like when a payment is a gift from husband to wife)
o Weird argument that if genders reversed it would be a gift
o In these circumstances, not a gift, so allowance should be made
Burgess v Rawnsley
Facts: Tramp A bought house with D as joint tenants at half shares each, A thought they would be married, D thought friends. Legal estate and beneficial interests both held jointly. A paid the bank and D paid A for the mortgage. D lived alone, A wanted D to sell him her share for 750, she said no and wanted 1000. A died three years later and his daughter P claims she is entitled to half the house. D claims it belongs to her for her sole benefit.
Held: P wins: there was a course of dealing which severed A and D’s joint tenancy and amounted to tenants in common.
First issue: Yes there’s a resulting trust. One contemplated marriage and the other didn’t; judged like as if a common object had failed. However, not putting decision in this ground alone.
Second issue: if one party gives notice in writing to other saying it wishes to sever, this is sufficient to sever the joint tenancy according to Lord Denning.
Reasons:
- A joint tenancy may be severed in three ways
1. an act of any one of the persons upon his own share may create a severance to that share
2. Mutual agreement
3. Any course of dealing sufficient to intimate that the interests of all were mutually treated as constituting a tenancy in common
- A and D came to agreement A would buy D’s share, it wasn’t enforceable but it did effect a severance
- Even if there was not any firm agreement but only a course of dealing, it clearly evinced an intention by both parties that the property should henceforth be held in common and not jointly
A died three years later and his daughter P claims she is entitled to half the house. D claims it belongs to her for her sole benefit.
Frosch v Dadd
Facts: D and A were brothers who started a real estate investment business. They had a joint account at a bank for it. D claims that although the business was TIC, this bank account was a joint account. A’s will said he would leave most stuff to sister P and other sister. D withdrew all the money from the joint account the day before A’s death.
Held: Rejected D’s claim about facts suggesting he was meant to inherit bank account by joint.
Reasons:
- Purpose of account was not mutual gift by them, it was for business purposes
- Even assuming D and A became joint owners of a chose in action, the fact that they were partners had the effect in equity that A’s share in the chose in action went to his legal personal representatives.
- The Court will not treat the mortgage as joint in equity merely because it contains a clause to the effect that the money belongs to the lenders on joint account.
