Land - Co-Ownership Flashcards
Structure
1) State co-ownership therefore statutory trust on land
2) Explain legal title - always held as joint tenancy and not severable
3) Explain Equitable interest: Joint Tenancy v Tenancy in Common
4) Discuss effect of incidents / changing arrangements - severed?
5) Conclude how legal and equitable title stand post incident.
6) If required - explain effects of disputes between trustees and beneficiaries.
7) If required - Explain whether potential buyer will be bound by equitable interests - registered/unregistered.
Define joint tenancy
co-owners have identical interests in the property, their interests being non-defined portions
Maximum of 4 people (s.34(2) LPA 1925)
Define tenancy in common
Owners have separate, but as yet undivided shares in the property, each for a specific percentage of the property.
AG Securities v Vaughan
4 certainties - PITT
Possession - co-owners equally entitled to use the whole premises
Interest - same nature and duration
Title - same document
Time - same time
If all four present, equitable interest MAY be held as joint tenancy, if one missing, can’t be.
Pink v Lawrence
If transfer document contains express statement of how equitable title is to be held, statement prevails.
Robertson v Fraser
Words of severance. E.g. “to be held equally / equal shares” = tenancy in common
Bull v Bull
Equity will presume tenancy in common where:
Buyers each contributed different amounts to the purchase price
Property bought on behalf of a business.
Ways of severance
1) Notice
2) Alienation
3) Mutual agreement / course of dealings
4) Homicide (Re K)
Harris v Goddard
Notice must be in writing and show CORRECT INTENTION i.e. intention to sever immediately, not at some later date.
Kinch v Bullard
Notice correctly served if left at last known abode / place of business of person to be served.
If delivered here, notice will be effective even if addressee does not actually ‘receive’ the notice.
Re 88 Berkeley Road
Notice sent by registered post to person to be served effective even if not actually received provided not returned undelivered.
Morgan v Marquis
Alienation - bankruptcy
Burgess v Rawnsley
Mutual agreement: oral agreement is sufficient to show the common intention necessary to sever a joint tenancy
Williams v Hensman
Where parties act in a way that suggests they intend the shares to be held as a tenancy in common. E.g. Where joint tenant is operating on his own share.
Re K
Severance by homicide - involuntary manslaughter not enough.
