Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law > Land - Coownership > Flashcards

Land - Coownership Flashcards

This flashcard deck was created using Flashcardlet's card creator

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
0
Q

s1(6) LPA 1925

A

Legal title is held as a joint tenancy, and the right of survivorship applies

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

s36(1) LPA 1925

A

Coownership of land gives rise to a statutory trust

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

s34(2) LPA 1925

A
  1. Legal coowners must be over 18
  2. Only 4 people may be legal owners
  3. Where there are more than 4, the first four adults take and the remaining only receive a beneficial share
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Goodman v Gallant

A

Agreement between the parties, e.g. Form TR1, will be seen by the courts as conclusive

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

Fowler v Barron

A

The law presumes that beneficial ownership is held as a joint tenancy, provided the 4 unities are present

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

AG Securities v Vaughn

A

4 unities are:

  • unity of possession
  • unity of time
  • unity of title
  • unity of interest
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

City of London BS v Flegg

A

Where there is unity of possession only, this will give rise to a tenancy in common

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

Payne v Webb

A

‘in equal shares’ are construed as words of severance

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

Lewen v Dodd

A

‘equally’ is construed as words of severance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Peat v Chapman

A

‘to be divided between’ is construed as words of severance

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

Stack v Dowden

A
  1. Equity presumes a tenancy in common where purchase monies are provided in unequal shares
  2. The shares will be held in equal proportion, but this presumption is rebuttable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Re Fuller

A

Purchase of a property by a business is presumed to be as a tenancy in common

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

s36(2) LPA 1925

A
  1. Legal title may never be severed

2. Severance of equitable title may be by notice OR implied by conduct (as per Williams v Henman)

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

s196(3) and (4)

A

Notice to sever will only be valid of:

  • in writing
  • delivered correctly
  • served on all JTs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Harris v Goddard

A

Severance in writing must be with immediate effect

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

Kinch v Bullard

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Re 88 Berkley Road

A

Notice sent recorded delivery will be validly delivered

- UNLESS it is returned by the postal service

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

Williams v Henman

A

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

Re Dennis

A

Adjudication of bankruptcy will be treated as acting on one’s own share

19
Q

Sale of beneficial interest

A

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

20
Q

Bedson v Bedson

A

Grant of a mortgage will be seen as acting on one’s own share

21
Q

Dunbar v Plant

A

Act of homicide/aiding suicide will be seen as acting on one’s own share

22
Q

Burgess v Rawnsley

A
  1. Mutual agreement to sever need not be in writing

2. Negotiations need not be conclusive to intimate course of dealing

23
Q

s6(1) TLATA 1996

A

Trustees/coowners are absolute owners at law

24
Q

s6(5) TLATA 1996

A

Trustees must have regard to rights of Bs

25
Q

s11(1) TLATA 1996

A

Ts must consult Bs in respect of any transaction concerning the property, and give effect to them

26
Q

s11(1)(b) TLATA 1996

A

Where wishes of Bs conflict, the majority view prevails, as determined by value of share

27
Q

Bull v Bull

A

If minority B wishes to remain in occupation, the majority Bs may not simply evict him

28
Q

s14 TLATA 1996

A

T, B and interested party, e.g. secured creditor, may apply to court in event of a dispute

29
Q

s12(1) TLATA 1996

A

B has right to occupy land where:

- bought originally/subsequently for his occupation

30
Q

s12(2) TLATA 1996

A

B’s right to occupation does not apply where the land is unavailable or unsuitable for occupation

31
Q

s13(1) TLATA 1996

A

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

32
Q

s13(4) TLATA 1996

A

When exercising power to exclude, T must have regard to:

  • intentions of settlor
  • purpose for which land held
  • circumstances and wishes of each B
33
Q

s13(6) TLATA 1996

A

T may require occupying B to pay rent to excluded Bs

34
Q

s13(7) TLATA 1996

A

T may not exclude a B currently in occupation, WITHOUT

- consent of B OR a court order

35
Q

s15 TLATA 1996

A

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)

36
Q

Re Evers

A

No sale ordered because purpose not complete, e.g. family home with minors still in occupation

37
Q

Jones v Challenger

A

Sale ordered because purpose complete, e.g. divorce and matrimonial home

38
Q

TSB v Marshall

A

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
39
Q

Bank of Ireland v Bell

A

A sale will only be ordered if it would not be fair, i.e. lender denied fair recompense

40
Q

Re Citro

A

Rights of the lender shall prevail

41
Q

Bank of Baroda v Dhillon

A

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

42
Q

s335A Insolvency Act 1986

A

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
43
Q

Re Holliday

A

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

44
Q

Judd v Brown

A

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

45
Q

Mortgage Corp v Shaire

A

Court may postpone sale to allow other Bs to take over the loan

Law (25 decks)

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