Final Revision Questions Land Law Flashcards
In 1975, a freeholder granted a tenant a lease of a flat in Birmingham for a term of 50 years. At the time of the transaction, registration was not compulsory on the grant of a lease, and the interest has remained unregistered since. In January 2019, the tenant decided to retire to the countryside and transferred her leasehold interest to her son.
Did the tenant’s transfer of the existing lease to her son trigger a compulsory first registration of title?
No, because while a grant of a lease for a term exceeding seven years triggers a compulsory first registration of title, this lease had only six years left to run.(D) The transfer of the existing lease to the son did not trigger a compulsory first registration of title because the lease had only six years left to run. Under the Land Registration Act 2002, a grant of a lease with more than seven years left to run at the date of the transaction will trigger a compulsory first registration of title. Here, the lease had only six years left to run in January 2019 (the date of the transaction), since it was granted for a 50-year term in 1975. Thus, there was no triggering event requiring first registration of the lease by the son. (A) is incorrect. Leases granted for a term of more than seven years do trigger a compulsory first registration. However, the relevant grant here is the one to the son. As the facts indicate, registration was not compulsory at the time the grocer was granted the 50-year lease. At the time of the transfer to the son, the lease had only six years left in its term to run. Thus, compulsory first registration is not triggered since the remaining term of the lease does not exceed seven years. (B) is incorrect. Transactions involving unregistered land trigger compulsory registration only on the occurrence of specific events. The main triggering events are a conveyance on sale of freehold land, an assent, a deed of gift, and a grant or assignment of a lease for a term exceeding seven years. A grant of a lease with less than seven years left to run, as here, is not a triggering event. (C) is incorrect. A conveyance on sale of freehold land is one of the main triggering events requiring first registration, but transfers of leasehold interests-specifically, a grant or assignment of a lease for a term exceeding seven years-will also trigger compulsory first registration. (E) is incorrect. A gift of land is a transfer of land and therefore may qualify as an event triggering first registration. However, the gift/transfer must still meet additional requirements (for example, by being a grant of a lease for a term exceeding seven years).
In 2010, a cyclist was granted an easement by deed by her neighbour. The easement gives the cyclist the right to pass over a path on the neighbour’s land to reach a public cycling route. The neighbour and the cyclist each holds the registered freehold interest in their property in their sole name. Last month, the neighbour put his property up for sale, and the cyclist wants to ensure her easement is protected.
What does the cyclist need to do to make sure her interest is protected?
The easement must be registered on the title register of both the cyclist’s property and the neighbour’s property.(B) To make sure the cyclist’s interest is protected, the easement must be registered on the title register of both the neighbour’s property (specifically, the charges register) and the cyclist’s property (specifically, the property register). (A) is incorrect. This is a new, express, legal easement and it must be registered to be binding on the purchaser. (C) and (D) are incorrect. The easement must be registered on the title register of both the neighbour’s property and the cyclist’s property. The benefit of the easement should appear as a notice on the property register of the dominant tenement (the cyclist’s property). The burden of the easement should appear on the charges register of the servient tenement (the neighbour’s property). (E) is incorrect. The cyclist’s easement should be protected by registration on the title register of both his and the neighbour’s property.
A woman purchased a cabin from a friend. The friend kept some of the land on the estate. The transfer to the woman included a covenant which stated: “Buyer agrees not to allow the stone wall on the northern boundary to fall into disrepair”. A few years of heavy rains have caused the wall to crumble and the friend has written the woman requesting that the woman reinstate the wall in accordance with the covenant.
Can the friend enforce the covenant against the woman?
Yes, because it is a positive covenant that may be enforced due to the doctrine of privity of contract as the woman and the friend are the original contracting parties.(D) The friend can enforce the positive covenant due to privity of contract as the woman and the friend are the original contracting parties. Generally, positive covenants bind only the contracting parties. Here, the covenant is a positive covenant because maintaining the stone wall is a positive act (usually requiring the payment of money to comply), and the covenant was made between the current parties, so no issues of enforceability between successors in title arise. (A) is incorrect because, as explained above, the covenant is positive rather than restrictive (despite the presence of the words ‘not to’) as maintaining the wall is a positive act. (B) is incorrect because positive covenants are enforceable between the original contracting parties. (C) is incorrect because, as explained above, this is a positive covenant. It is possible for restrictive covenants to be enforced even if not registered. (E) is incorrect because the friend does not need to show that the woman has been at fault in causing the disrepair to enforce the positive covenant. The covenant is enforceable between them without further condition because they are the original contracting parties.
A painter has lived for many years in a cottage. She now wants to apply for first registration of the property. She consults a solicitor, who asks her to provide certain documentation related to the property. The painter remembered having stored the title deeds to the property in a box in her wardrobe. However, after searching the entire cottage several times, she cannot locate the deeds anywhere.
What class of title is likely to be granted when the property is registered?
Possessory title.(B) On first registration, His Majesty’s Land Registry (‘HMLR’) is likely to grant possessory title since the unregistered title deeds to the property have been lost and cannot be produced. Possessory title is the class of title which may be awarded by HMLR if the application for title is based on factual possession of the land rather than documentary evidence. (A) is incorrect because it is not a class of title. A freehold estate is one of the two legal estates in land in England and Wales. (C) is incorrect because this is not a class of title. Good leasehold title may be awarded when the freehold title has not been produced to HMLR on application to register a lease. (D) is incorrect because absolute title is the best form of title that can be granted by HMLR. Whilst it is theoretically possible to obtain a title absolute with an application relating to lost deeds, the evidence produced to HMLR would have to be extensive and it would be very rare to secure this form of title in these circumstances. (E) is incorrect because this is not a class of title. A leasehold estate is the other of the two legal estates in land in England and Wales
A woman owned a plot of land which she sold to her cousin by way of conveyance in 1985. This transaction did not trigger first registration of the title. In that conveyance, the woman imposed a covenant on the plot not to build more than a four-storey building on the land. The cousin has now sold the plot to an investor who wants to build a 10-storey tower block on the plot. While reviewing the epitome of title provided by the cousin, the investor’s solicitor saw the covenant in the 1985 conveyance. When he carried out a full land charges search, the result came back clear with no entries.
Is the investor bound by the woman’s covenant?
No, because the covenant was not registered as a D(ii) restrictive covenant land charge. B) The investor will not be bound by the woman’s covenant because it was not registered as a D(ii) land charge, which protects a restrictive covenant. To be enforceable against a subsequent buyer of land, equitable rights and interests, such as a restrictive covenant, must be protected by registration as land charges. (A) is incorrect because a C(i) land charge protects a puisne mortgage, which is not relevant here. (C) and (D) are incorrect because it is registration as a land charge that constitutes actual notice, not the appearance of the covenant on the charges register after first registration of title or the fact that the investor’s solicitor has seen the document containing the covenant. Here, as explained above, the covenant was not registered as a land charge and therefore the investor is not bound by it. (E) is incorrect because interests related to the plot could still be binding on a subsequent buyer despite the fact that title is unregistered. The covenant is not binding here because it was not registered as a land charge.QUESTION ID
A woman has a right to remove fish from a neighbouring pond. The woman offers to sell this right to her nephew, who enjoys fishing. The woman’s nephew is concerned because the woman does not own the land from which she removes the fish.
Which of the following best describes the likely interest that the woman is trying to sell?
The woman has a profit a prendre in gross.(C) The woman is likely to have and is trying to sell a profit a prendre in gross. A profit a prendre is an interest in land enabling someone to take something from the land of another (for example, timber or fish). A profit a prendre in gross is a profit that can be bought and sold independently and it is not attached to the ownership of any piece of land. Here, the woman’s right to remove the fish is not attached to any piece of land, so it is likely to be a profit a prendre in gross. (A) is incorrect because an easement is a right over someone’s land. A profit is a right to take something from the land of another. As explained above, the woman’s right is a profit because it is a right to take fish from the land of another. (B) is incorrect because a profit a prendre appurtenant is a profit in which the right is attached to a particular piece of land in the same way as an easement. As explained above, the woman’s right is not attached to any piece of land. (D) is incorrect because a rentcharge is not relevant here; a rentcharge is an interest in land requiring the landowner to make a periodic payment to the rentcharge owner. (E) is incorrect because an equitable interest is not relevant here; an equitable interest is a right that is not a legal interest
A printer agrees to buy a paper mill from an investor. The parties enter into a contract for the purchase. Legal title to the mill is registered at His Majesty’s Land Registry (‘HMLR’). The transaction is not due to complete for another four months.
Which of the following best describes how the printer’s position should be protected?
ResponsesPress Enter or Space to submit the answer
By registration of a notice on the investor’s charges register.(C) The printer’s position should be protected by registration of a notice on the investor’s charges register. A notice is an entry in the register in respect of a burden affecting a registered estate. The notice must appear on the investor’s charges register, which is where any burdens or encumbrances that affect the land-such as covenants, mortgages, or, as here, an estate contract-must be entered. (A) and (E) are incorrect because a restriction is used to prevent any dealing with the land otherwise than in accordance with the terms of that restriction, such as a restriction entered when the beneficial interest is held as tenants in common. It protects an interest under a trust and appears on the proprietorship register. (B) is incorrect because the notice of a burden must appear on the charges register. The proprietorship register denotes the class of title and who holds the legal estate. (D) is incorrect because registration of the estate contract must be carried out to protect the printer’s position and to put the world on notice of the existence of the agreement.Q
A woman owns a home with a large garden. The woman is concerned because her neighbour frequently piles rubbish in a corner of his land rather than putting it in a bin. The rubbish develops a foul smell which prevents the woman from enjoying her garden. The woman believes the neighbour’s activity breaches a covenant entered into by the woman’s predecessor in title. The covenant states that there must be ‘no noxious odorous or offensive activity’ taking place on the neighbour’s land. There is no reference in the agreement containing the covenant whether the covenant is intended to be for the benefit of any successors.
Which of the following is a condition that must be satisfied for the woman to enforce the benefit of the covenant at common law?
The covenant must have been intended to run with the land held by the predecessor in title.(B) One condition the woman must satisfy is that the covenant must have been intended to run with the land held by the woman’s predecessor in title. A benefit is assumed to have been intended to run with the land, unless there are express words to the contrary (of which there are none here). Additionally, in order to enforce the benefit of the covenant at law, the woman must show that (1) the covenant touches and concerns her land; (2) at the time the covenant was made, the woman’s predecessor in title held the legal estate in the land to be benefitted; and (3) the woman now holds the legal estate in the land to be benefitted. (A) is incorrect because the woman’s predecessor in title did not need to have held both the legal estate in the land to be benefitted and the land to be burdened for the woman to enforce the covenant. As explained above, the predecessor in title needed to have held only the legal estate in the land to be benefitted. (C) is incorrect because whether the neighbour’s land is part of a building scheme may be relevant to enforcement of the covenant in equity, but the question asks about enforcement at law. (D) is incorrect because in addition to not being a relevant condition, positive covenants generally bind only the original covenantor and are difficult to enforce. (E) is incorrect because the opposite is true: the covenant must not be personal in nature in order for the woman to enforce it. In other words, the covenant must touch and concern the land to be benefitted. QUESTION ID: LAN177
Question
Ten years ago, two friends learned that they would be moving to the same city at the same time for new jobs. They decided to jointly purchase a property to live in together and save money. The friends then purchased a bungalow as joint tenants. Over the years, the friends have drifted apart and now wish to go their separate ways. However, they cannot come to an agreement about what should be done with the bungalow. One friend wants to sell and the other does not.
What step can the owner who wants to sell take to break the deadlock?
The owner who wants to sell can apply to the court for an order for sale.(C) To break the deadlock, the owner who wants to sell can apply to the court for an order for sale. If co-owners cannot agree how or when to dispose of a property, a trustee or any other person with an interest in property subject to a trust (which includes co-owners) can apply to the courts for an order relating to the trustee’s duties, including an order to sell. (A) is incorrect. As explained above, the owner who wants to sell does have a course of action open to him to break the deadlock, which is to apply to the court for an order for sale. (B) is incorrect because it is not an appropriate remedy here. Specific performance is an equitable remedy which can be applied for to try to force one party to perform their obligations under a contract. Here, there is no contract between the co-owners to be enforced that would require the co-owner to transfer his interest in the land. (D) is incorrect because overreaching is not applicable here. Overreaching is a process by which a buyer may take free of a beneficiary’s interest under a trust. Here, there is no sale yet that would entail overreaching. (E) is incorrect because it is not an available remedy here. The co-owner is not required to agree with the other co-owner as to the sale. The co-owner who wishes to sell can then apply to the court for an order for sale to break the deadlock.QUESTION ID: LAN210
Three friends, a dancer, an actor, and a sculptor, decided to purchase a property together. The dancer provided 15% of the purchase price, the actor provided 35% of the purchase price, and the sculptor provided 50% of the purchase price. At the time of purchase a declaration of trust was made regarding the beneficial ownership of the property, which reflected the parties’ unequal contributions to the purchase price. The actor has now died, leaving everything to the dancer in his will.
To whom will the actor’s beneficial interest pass?
The interest will pass to the dancer, pursuant to the actor’s will, and the dancer will hold the property as a tenant in common.(B) The actor’s beneficial interest will pass to the dancer, pursuant to the actor’s will, and the dancer will hold the property as a tenant in common. Due to the parties’ unequal contributions to the purchase price, as reflected in the declaration, the dancer, the actor, and the sculptor hold the beneficial interest as tenants in common rather than as joint tenants. Since there is no joint tenancy, the rule of survivorship does not apply. Thus, upon the actor’s death, the actor’s interest will pass pursuant to their will to the dancer, who will continue to hold his interest as a tenant in common. (A) and (C) are incorrect because, as explained, the parties do not hold as joint tenants. If the parties did hold as joint tenants, the rule of survivorship would apply. (D) and (E) are incorrect because the dancer will not hold the actor’s interest on trust. The actor’s interest will pass to the dancer by will.
A man holds a 25-year lease, granted 15 years ago. The man was recently made redundant and has not paid rent for three months. He looks over his lease and discovers that it contains no provision regarding the landlord’s remedies for failure to pay rent.
May the landlord seek the remedy of forfeiture for the man’s non-payment of rent?
No, because forfeiture will not be implied into a lease on the landlord’s behalf and there is no express provision.(D) The landlord may not seek forfeiture because forfeiture will not be implied into a lease on the landlord’s behalf and there is no express provision. Forfeiture is the right of a landlord to re-enter the premises and bring the lease to an end early due to default by the tenant. It is available for breaches such as the tenant’s non-payment of rent or breach of a covenant to repair. However, it will not be implied into a lease on a landlord’s behalf. The lease must contain an express provision for forfeiture. Here, there was no such express provision, so this remedy is not available to the landlord in this case. (A) and (B) are incorrect because forfeiture will not be implied into a lease, and if it were available, it is not the landlord’s sole available remedy in the event of a tenant’s non-payment of rent. (C) is incorrect because, if expressly included in a lease, forfeiture is a remedy available to a landlord for the tenant’s non-payment of rent. (E) is incorrect because there is no such time restriction on the availability of forfeiture for a tenant’s non-payment of rent.
A woman entered into a 10-year lease. The lease was granted five years ago. The woman now wants to assign the lease to her nephew.
The relevant wording of the covenant regarding assignment in the lease is as follows:
“The Tenant shall not assign, underlet, or charge the Property without the prior written consent of the Landlord”.
Under what circumstances is the woman entitled to assign the lease?
ResponsesPress Enter or Space to submit the answer
The woman must seek the landlord’s consent to assignment, which may not be unreasonably withheld.(E) If the woman wishes to assign the lease, she must seek the landlord’s consent to assignment, which may not be unreasonably withheld. Landlords often wish to protect their investment and try to exert some control over who owns the leasehold interest. An absolute covenant prohibits a tenant from assigning under any circumstances. A qualified covenant means assignment may be sought, subject to certain conditions. Here, because the covenant provides that an assignment (and such) can be made with the landlord’s consent, it is a qualified covenant. Pursuant to statute, with a qualified covenant, the landlord’s consent may not be unreasonably withheld. Thus, (A) is incorrect. (B) and (D) are incorrect because while these may be conditions that a landlord imposes upon a tenant’s request to assign, they are not required in all circumstances, nor are they required on these facts. (C) is incorrect because the landlord’s consent may not be unreasonably withheld; it is not the case that the landlord may not withhold consent under any circumstances.
A man owns the registered freehold to a plot of land on which he has built a house and grazes sheep. The man sells a portion of the land to a farmer. The man continues to live on the remaining land. The transfer includes a covenant that neither the farmer nor any of his successors in title will use the land for anything other than livestock grazing. Four years later, the man licences his remaining land to a licensee. Seven months later, the farmer begins building a large house and barn on his land.
Can the licensee enforce the covenant against the farmer at common law?
No, because the licensee does not hold a legal estate, like the man holds.B) The licensee will not be able to enforce the covenant against the farmer because the licensee does not hold a legal estate in the land. The benefit of a covenant will be enforceable by a covenantee’s successors in title as long as: (1) the covenant touches and concerns the land of the covenantee; (2) the covenant was intended to run with the legal estate held by the covenantee; (3) at the time the covenant was made, the covenantee held the legal estate in the land to be benefitted; and (4) the successor of the original covenantee now holds a legal estate in the same land. Here, the licensee does not hold a legal estate of the original covenantee (the man) because the man has only created a licence. This is insufficient to enforce the benefit of the covenant against the farmer. (A) and (C) are incorrect because, as explained above, the licensee is not a successor in title of a legal estate to the man and therefore cannot enforce the benefit of the covenant against the farmer. It is irrelevant that the licensee is seeking to enforce against the original covenantor, because the licensee is not entitled to enforce the benefit against the farmer. (D) is incorrect because the licensee is not a successor in title to the man and therefore will not be able to enforce the covenant regardless of whether the action is at law or in equity. (E) is incorrect because the covenant does ‘touch and concern the land,’ since it is related to how the land can be used. This is one of the requirements for a successor in title to enforce the benefit of a covenant, but, as explained above, the licensee is not a successor in title and so cannot enforce the covenant
