Land - Coownership Flashcards
This flashcard deck was created using Flashcardlet's card creator
s1(6) LPA 1925
Legal title is held as a joint tenancy, and the right of survivorship applies
s36(1) LPA 1925
Coownership of land gives rise to a statutory trust
s34(2) LPA 1925
- Legal coowners must be over 18
- Only 4 people may be legal owners
- Where there are more than 4, the first four adults take and the remaining only receive a beneficial share
Goodman v Gallant
Agreement between the parties, e.g. Form TR1, will be seen by the courts as conclusive
Fowler v Barron
The law presumes that beneficial ownership is held as a joint tenancy, provided the 4 unities are present
AG Securities v Vaughn
4 unities are:
- unity of possession
- unity of time
- unity of title
- unity of interest
City of London BS v Flegg
Where there is unity of possession only, this will give rise to a tenancy in common
Payne v Webb
‘in equal shares’ are construed as words of severance
Lewen v Dodd
‘equally’ is construed as words of severance
Peat v Chapman
‘to be divided between’ is construed as words of severance
Stack v Dowden
- Equity presumes a tenancy in common where purchase monies are provided in unequal shares
- The shares will be held in equal proportion, but this presumption is rebuttable
Re Fuller
Purchase of a property by a business is presumed to be as a tenancy in common
s36(2) LPA 1925
- Legal title may never be severed
2. Severance of equitable title may be by notice OR implied by conduct (as per Williams v Henman)
s196(3) and (4)
Notice to sever will only be valid of:
- in writing
- delivered correctly
- served on all JTs
Harris v Goddard
Severance in writing must be with immediate effect
Kinch v Bullard
Notice will be validly delivered if it is left at the JT’s last place of abode/business, even if he did not actually receive it
Re 88 Berkley Road
Notice sent recorded delivery will be validly delivered
- UNLESS it is returned by the postal service
Williams v Henman
Severance may be implied by conduct if:
- JT acts upon his own share inter vivos
- JTs mutually agree to sever/buy out
- All JTs act in a way that intimates that they treat their interests as separate/a TiC
Re Dennis
Adjudication of bankruptcy will be treated as acting on one’s own share
Sale of beneficial interest
Alienation of beneficial interest will be treated as acting on one’s own share
- PROVIDED it is in compliance with s53(1)(c) LPA 1925
Bedson v Bedson
Grant of a mortgage will be seen as acting on one’s own share
Dunbar v Plant
Act of homicide/aiding suicide will be seen as acting on one’s own share
Burgess v Rawnsley
- Mutual agreement to sever need not be in writing
2. Negotiations need not be conclusive to intimate course of dealing
s6(1) TLATA 1996
Trustees/coowners are absolute owners at law
s6(5) TLATA 1996
Trustees must have regard to rights of Bs
s11(1) TLATA 1996
Ts must consult Bs in respect of any transaction concerning the property, and give effect to them
s11(1)(b) TLATA 1996
Where wishes of Bs conflict, the majority view prevails, as determined by value of share
Bull v Bull
If minority B wishes to remain in occupation, the majority Bs may not simply evict him
s14 TLATA 1996
T, B and interested party, e.g. secured creditor, may apply to court in event of a dispute
s12(1) TLATA 1996
B has right to occupy land where:
- bought originally/subsequently for his occupation
s12(2) TLATA 1996
B’s right to occupation does not apply where the land is unavailable or unsuitable for occupation
s13(1) TLATA 1996
T has power to decide whom to exclude in event of dispute between Bs as to right of occupation, but he may not exclude all Bs
s13(4) TLATA 1996
When exercising power to exclude, T must have regard to:
- intentions of settlor
- purpose for which land held
- circumstances and wishes of each B
s13(6) TLATA 1996
T may require occupying B to pay rent to excluded Bs
s13(7) TLATA 1996
T may not exclude a B currently in occupation, WITHOUT
- consent of B OR a court order
s15 TLATA 1996
When reaching a decision in a dispute, the court will have regard to:
- intentions of the settlor
- purpose for which the property is held
- welfare of any minors
- interests of any secured creditor
(- circumstances/wishes of Bs in event of dispute as to right of occupation)
Re Evers
No sale ordered because purpose not complete, e.g. family home with minors still in occupation
Jones v Challenger
Sale ordered because purpose complete, e.g. divorce and matrimonial home
TSB v Marshall
Court will be guided by the following when interpreting s15 TLATA 1996 criteria in the event of sale request by mortgagee:
- what is equitable, fair and just
- interests of secured creditor
- purpose for which land is held
Bank of Ireland v Bell
A sale will only be ordered if it would not be fair, i.e. lender denied fair recompense
Re Citro
Rights of the lender shall prevail
Bank of Baroda v Dhillon
Creditor’s rights shall only prevail if there are no exceptional circumstances, e.g. minors in occupation and sale would result in insufficient monies to find alternative accommodation
s335A Insolvency Act 1986
s15 TLATA 1996 criteria do not apply; instead bankruptcy court will consider:
- what is fair, just and reasonable vis-à-vis interests of bankrupt’s creditors
- conduct of spouse in relation to bankruptcy
- needs and financial means of the spouse
- needs of any minors in occupation
Re Holliday
Automatic presumption that interests of bankrupt’s creditors prevail after 1 year will only be rebutted if there are exceptional circumstances, e.g. spouse with young children
Judd v Brown
Automatic presumption that interests of bankrupt’s creditors prevail after 1 year will only be rebutted if there are exceptional circumstances, e.g. long-term illness/convalescence
Mortgage Corp v Shaire
Court may postpone sale to allow other Bs to take over the loan
