Land Law SBAQs Flashcards
Which one of the following items will usually be considered to be a chattel?
A. Fitted kitchen units
B. Built-in oven and hob
C. Free-standing fridge
D. Bathroom sink
E. Fitted wardrobes
Only Option C is correct. See the case of TSB v Botham [1995]
Which one of the interests listed below is capable of existing as a legal interest in land?
A. An easement
B. An interest of a beneficiary under a trust
C. An estate contract
D. An option
E. A restrictive covenant
A is the correct answer
An easement is the only interest in the list that is capable of being a legal interest in land - s.1(2) Law of Property Act 1925 (although certain formalities will have to be complied with for it to be valid).
All the other interests are only capable of existing as equitable interests - s.1(3) Law of Property Act 1925.
Which one of the following transactions does not require a deed to be valid at law?
A. Grant of a legal lease for two years with immediate possession
B. Sale of an existing legal lease
C. Grant of a legal lease for a term of five years
D. The sale of a freehold
The correct answer is A
The grant of a legal lease for two years with immediate possession comes within the exception to s.52 LPA that legal leases for not more than three years can be created orally or in writing - see s.54(2) LPA 1925.
However, the sale of an existing lease is the transfer of a legal estate in land and is required to be by deed.
The grant of a legal lease for a term of five years and the sale of a freehold must be completed by deed.
Which one or more of the following statements is or are correct?
To obtain credit for this question you must identify all correct statements.
A. All land in England and Wales belongs to the Crown
B. The Crown has the right to occupy all the land in England and Wales
C. There are only two LEGAL estates in land
D. A person owning an estate in land can create out of it a lesser estate
The correct answers are- A, C and D
All land in England and Wales does belong to the Crown but the Crown does not have the right to occupy it whilst there is a freeholder or leaseholder in possession.
There are only two legal estates in land, the fee simple absolute in possession (the freehold) and the term of years absolute in possession (the leasehold).
A person owning an estate can create out of it a lesser estate, e.g., the owner of a freehold estate can grant a leasehold estate. “Fee” means that an estate is capable of being inherited and “simple” signifies that it may pass to any class of heir.
Which one of the following answers is the correct statutory provision to match with the statement below?
All contracts for the sale of an interest in land must be in writing, contain all the agreed terms and be signed by or on behalf of the parties to the contract.
A. s.54(2) Law of Property Act 1925
B. s.2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
C. s.52 Law of Property Act 1925
D. s.53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925
The correct answer is B
s.2 LP(MP)A 1989 governs the formation of contracts for the sale of interests in land
C, s.52 LPA 1925 provides that a legal estate can only be passed by deed;
A, s.54(2) LPA 1925 deals with the creation of legal leases for not more than 3 years
D, s.53(1)(b) deals with the formalities for the express creation of a trust in land.
Is the following statement True or False?
When a seller vacates the property, he may be able to remove fixtures that were present on the property at the time the contract was entered into.
The statement is True
The seller is permitted to remove fixtures present on the property when the contract was entered into, but only if they have reserved the right to remove them in the contract.
A freehold owner entered an agreement (not in the form of a deed) to grant a five year lease with a tenant. The parties have never formalised the arrangement.
Which of the following answers best describes the circumstances in which equity would intervene to recognise the arrangement?
A. The agreement must state that it is a deed, be signed, witnessed, delivered and the tenant must have clean hands.
B. The agreement must be in writing and signed as the interest is not capable of being legal.
C. The agreement must be in writing, signed, contain all the expressly agreed terms and the tenant must have clean hands.
D. The agreement must be formalised by deed.
E. The agreement must be in writing, signed, contain all the expressly agreed terms and the freehold owner must have clean hands.
The correct answer is C
Equity may intervene to recognise the agreement if there is a contract complying with s2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (which requires the written contract to incorporate all the expressly agreed terms and be signed by or on behalf of all parties) and the tenant has clean hands (Walsh v Lonsdale).
Option A is not the best answer as it omits the need for the contract to comply with s2 LPMPA, in particular the need for the contract to incorporate all the expressly agreed terms.
Option B is wrong. A lease is capable of being legal.
Option D is not the best answer. A five-year lease requires a deed in order to be legal (s.52 LPA 1925 and s1 LPMPA 1989), but this is not relevant to whether equity will recognise the arrangement.
Option E is wrong as it is the tenant who needs to demonstrate clean hands.
A client has entered into a contract to purchase a house. After exchange of contracts, the client seeks your advice about whether the seller must leave the built in oven and inset hob both made by the same high end manufacturer as part of an expensive modern kitchen. The items are not mentioned in the contract.
May the seller remove the items before completion?
A. Yes, because the items are likely to be fixtures due to the high degree of annexation.
B. Yes, because the items are likely to be chattels due to the slight degree of annexation.
C. Yes, because the items are the seller’s personal property and always removable.
D. No, because removal of the items would cause the room to be unfit for use as a kitchen and appear to form part of the overall design of the kitchen.
E. No, because any item within a property is permanently part of the land and must not be removed.
The correct answer is Option D.
Although the items could be removed without significant damage, it is not known whether they are of standard size or easy to replace.
Once removed, the oven and hob could not be used without similar cabinets to house them and the items appear to form part of the overall design of the kitchen. Hence the purpose of annexation is for the better enjoyment of the land and not the items. The items are therefore fixtures.
Options A and B are not the best answers as they only consider the first element of the two stage test (the degree of annexation).
Options C and E are wrong as neither answer reflects the two stage test.
Which one or more of the following statements is or are correct?
A. A legal easement created over an unregistered title is automatically binding on subsequent purchasers of that title.
B. When the Bilford Bank Trust Corporation, acting as trustee of the Smith Family trust, sells land with unregistered title belonging to the trust, the purchaser will not be bound by the interests of the Smith Family.
C. An equitable lease created over an unregistered title after 1925 is binding on a purchaser unless he is Equity’s Darling.
D. A purchaser of an unregistered title will not be bound by a pre-1926 restrictive covenant if he is Equity’s Darling
Statements A, B and D are correct.
A, Legal rights generally bind the world in the unregistered system.
B, A trust corporation can give a valid receipt for capital money arising on the sale of a trust property (ss 2 & 27 LPA 1925).
C, A post-1925 equitable lease is an estate contract and so should be registered as a C(iv) land charge at the Central Land Charges Department to bind a purchaser.
D, Pre-1926 equitable interests (including covenants and easements) still rely on the doctrine of notice (‘Equity’s Darling’) for their enforceability.
A freehold owner sells part of their land. Within the transfer (by deed) the buyer promises to use the land for agricultural purposes only.
Which of the following answers best describes the interest that has been created?
A. It is a restrictive covenant which is legal as it has been created by deed.
B. It is a restrictive covenant which is not capable of being a legal interest.
C. It is a legal easement as it has been made by deed.
D. It is a restrictive covenant which is capable of being a legal interest.
E. It is a restrictive covenant and must be created by deed in order to take effect at law.
Option B is correct.
A restrictive covenant does not appear in either s1(1) or s1(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 and is therefore not capable of being legal (s1(3) LPA 1925). The required formality for the creation of a restrictive covenant is in writing and signed (s53 LPA 1925). A deed more than meets this requirement.
Options A, D and E are wrong. Creating a restrictive covenant by deed does not alter the fact that it is equitable by nature.
Option C is wrong. This is a restrictive covenant, ie a promise by one landowner in favour of another landowner that they will not do certain things on the land.
Which one or more of the following statements is or are correct?
An option to renew a legal lease will be binding on a purchaser of the freehold title if…
A. The freehold has an unregistered title and, before the sale, the option had been registered as a C(iv) land charge at the Central Land Charges Department
B. The freehold has an unregistered title and, before the sale, the option had been registered as a class F land charge at the Central Land Charges Department
C. The freehold has a registered title and, before the sale, the option had been registered as an overriding interest on the title at Land Registry
D. The freehold has a registered title and, before the sale, the option had been protected by registration of a notice in the Charges Register of the title at Land Registry
E. The freehold has a registered title and the tenant with the benefit of the option is in actual occupation of the property at completion of the sale
F. The freehold has an unregistered title and the tenant with the benefit of the option is in actual occupation of the property at the completion of the sale
The correct answers are A, D and E
To be binding on a purchaser of an unregistered freehold, an option must be protected by registration as a Class C(iv) land charge at the Central Land Charges Department (Plymouth).
(Class F protects the statutory right of a non legal owning spouse or civil partner to occupy under s 30 Family Law Act 1996).
With a registered title the option will be binding if it is either protected as an interest affecting a registered estate by the registration of a notice in the charges register of the title, or it may be protected as an overriding interest if the tenant is in actual occupation under Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002.
The option is an interest in land and that interest becomes overriding if the owner of the interest is in actual occupation of the property. Overriding interests are not entered on the register and the principle does not apply to the unregistered system.
A freehold owner granted a three year lease to a tenant by deed in return for a one off payment of £30,000. The tenant discovered that the freehold owner’s signature had not been witnessed.
What interest has been created?
A. An equitable lease.
B. A legal lease.
C. A legal easement.
D. A legal parol lease.
E. An equitable easement.
Option A is correct.
The facts state that a lease has been created (and so Options C and E are wrong). A lease is capable of being legal (s1(1)(a) Law of Property Act 1925). A deed is normally required to create a legal lease (s52(1) LPA 1925). A deed must meet the requirements of s1 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The deed fails this as the freehold owner’s signature had not been witnessed (and so Option B is wrong).
There is an exception the the rule that a deed is required to create a legal lease - the parol lease exception. However this will not apply here as one of the requirements (that there should be no fine or premium) is not met as there is a premium (£30,000 one-off payment) and so Option D is wrong.
The lease will therefore be equitable as it appears to meet the requirements of s2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
As a result of the Land Charges Act 1925, certain incumbrances must be registered as land charges if they are to bind successors in title. Please match the following incumbrances to their correct land charges class.
- Restrictive covenant created on or after 1 January 1926
- Equitable lease
- Estate contract
- A right of occupation under the Family Law Act 1996
- Restrictive covenant created on or after 1 January 1926
- Class D(ii) - Equitable lease
- Class C(iv) - Estate contract
- Class C(iv) - A right of occupation under the Family Law Act 1996
- Class F
Tim holds Blackacre on trust for Bella and Barry. Tim sells Blackacre to Peter.
Which ONE of the following statements is correct?
A. If Blackacre has an unregistered title, Bella’s and Barry’s interest will only be binding on Peter if it was registered as a C(iii) land charge at the Central Land Charges Department.
B. If Blackacre has an unregistered title, Bella’s and Barry’s interest will not be binding on Peter if he is a bona fide purchaser for value of the legal estate without notice of their interest (Equity’s Darling).
C. If Blackacre has a registered title, Bella’s and Barry’s interest will be binding on Peter because equitable interests under a trust are always overriding interests.
D. Whether the title is registered or unregistered, Bella’s and Barry’s interest will not be binding on Peter because he overreached it when he purchased the property.
The correct answer is B
Peter has not satisfied the condition for overreaching because he did not pay the money to all the trustees being a minimum of two or, if appropriate, to a trust corporation (see ss 2 and 27 LPA 1925). There was only one trustee, Tim.
With unregistered titles it is not possible to register equitable interests arising under a trust at the Central Land Charges Department. This means that when deciding whether or not the interest is binding on a purchaser in the unregistered system we must ask whether or not the purchaser is Equity’s Darling.
With a registered title, interests under a trust are only overriding interests if the owner of that interest is in actual occupation of the property (Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002).
Select the correct phrase from the list below to complete the following statement:
A seller of a registered title must prove his ownership by providing the buyer with _______________.
A. copies of the title deeds
B. A Land Charges Department search
C. A Land Registry search
D. Official copies of the title from Land Registry
The correct answer is D
The seller’s ownership can only be proved by entry of his name on the Proprietorship Register of the title to the land at Land Registry. A seller must provide a buyer with a copy of the title, known as ‘official copies’.
A search of the Land Register will not provide this information.
Title deeds and Land Charges searches are only relevant where the seller owns land with an unregistered title.
Where the title to the property is registered, a mortgage by deed may either be protected by deposit of the title deeds or by the registration of the charge against the title to the property at Land Registry.
Is this statement True or False?
The statement is False -
To be binding on a purchaser of the registered title and to be completed as a legal mortgage, the mortgage must appear as a registered charge in the charges register of the title at Land Registry, as it is a registrable disposition under s 27 LRA 2002
It is not possible to protect a mortgage of a registered title by deposit of title deeds.
Select the correct authority from the list below to complete the following statement:
Easements created by implication or prescription are enforceable against a purchaser of land with registered title under ________________.
A. s 27 Land Registration Act 2002
B. Sch 3 para 2 Land Registration Act 2002
C. Sch 3 para 3 Land Registration Act 2002
D. Sch 3 para 1 Land Registration Act 2002
E. s 32 LRA 2002
The correct answer is C
Such easements are legal but are not registrable as they are not created expressly in a deed. Instead, they are protected as overriding interests under Schedule 3 para 3 Land Registration Act 2002.
Sch 3 para 1 protects legal leases for 7 years or less
Sch 3 para 2 protects interests where the owner of the interest is in actual occupation of the land.
Section 27 refers to registrable dispositions
Section 32 to registration of notices.
Since 13 October 2003, which one or more of the following legal leases must be registered with their own title (and noted against the superior title) in order to bind a purchaser?
Hide answer choices
A. Lease for 3 years
B. Lease for 10 years
C. Lease for 7 years
D. Lease for 21 years
E. Lease for 22 years
The correct answers are B, D and E
Only leases granted for more than seven years must be registered with their own title.
(Under the pre-LRA 2002 rules, the term was twenty one years).
A buyer recently completed the purchase of an unregistered freehold property (‘the Property’). Yesterday, the buyer moved into the Property and was confronted by the neighbouring landowner who claimed to have a right of way over the Property for 20 years. The neighbouring landowner produced a deed evidencing the right of way. The buyer checked the document and discovered that the signatures had not been witnessed.
Will the buyer be bound by the neighbouring landowner’s right of way?
A. Yes, because the right-of way is a legal right and, therefore, binding on the buyer.
B. No, because the right of way is equitable by nature and, therefore, not binding on the buyer.
C. No, because the right of way is legal but only binding if a Land Charge is registered.
D. Yes, because the right of way is equitable and the buyer is bound by the equitable doctrine of notice.
E. No, because the right of way is equitable and the buyer will only be bound if a Land Charge has been registered.
The correct Option is E.
An easement for a fixed duration (20 years) is capable of being legal. A deed is required to create a legal easement. The document does not comply with the formalities for creating a deed because the signatures have not been witnessed. The easement is, therefore, equitable and would need to be protected by registration of a Land Charge.
Option A correctly states the legal principle but does not relate to the facts. The answer is, therefore, wrong.
Option B is partially correct in that it identifies that the easement is equitable but wrong in stating that an equitable easement cannot bind the buyer.
Option C is wrong as a legal easement in unregistered land would bind the world. A Land Charge is only required to protect an equitable easement.
Option D correctly states the legal principle applying to equitable easements created prior to 1926 but the easement in question was created 20 years ago and, therefore, the answer is wrong.
A woman lives in a house, the registered freehold of which is owned in the sole name of her civil partner. The woman has resided there throughout the 12 year relationship, but she has made no direct or indirect financial contributions towards the house.
The relationship has recently broken down and so she seeks advice from a solicitor. She explains to the solicitor that her civil partner has now moved out of the house and is threatening to sell it. This is concerning her as she would be left homeless if a sale did go ahead.
Which of the following statements best describes the advice which should be given to her by the solicitor in relation to her concerns about a sale of the property?
A. She should immediately register a Class F land charges against the name of the civil partner at the Land Charges Department.
B. She should immediately register a notice in the charges register of the title to the property.
C. She should immediately register a restriction in the proprietorship of the title to the property.
D. So long as she continues to live in the property, a buyer will be bound by her overriding interest as a person in actual occupation, irrespective of whether her interest is registered.
E. A buyer will be able to overreach her interest by paying the purchase money to at least two trustees, irrespective of whether her interest is registered or whether she is living in the property.
The correct answer is B
She has home rights under s30 Family Law Act 1996 (FLA) as a non-owning civil partner. As the title to the property is registered, she should protect this interest by registering it as a notice in the charges register. If this is done by the date of registration of a buyer, it will bind the buyer and she cannot be evicted from her home without a court order whilst the civil partnership is still in existence (in practice, it is unlikely that a buyer would proceed with a purchase whilst such a notice remains on the register).
Option A is wrong because the registration of a Class F land charge would only be applicable if the property had an unregistered title.
Option C is wrong because a restriction would only be relevant if she had a trust interest and on the facts it appears that no such trust interest has arisen (and in any event, a restriction simply alerts a buyer to overreach).
Option D is wrong because home rights cannot be protected by actual occupation as an overriding interest under Sched 3 para 2 Land Registration Act 2002 (s31(10)(b) FLA 1996).
Option E is wrong because it is only possible for a buyer to overreach a trust interest, and on the facts no such trust interest has arisen.
Last month, before emigrating to Australia, the then owner (“the Former Owner”) of a house with unregistered title made an outright gift of the house to his cousin who did not have a home of his own. When the Former Owner bought the house a few years ago, his wife paid the deposit and when doing so she made it clear to her husband, the Former Owner, that in paying the deposit she was not doing so as a gift or a loan. Before accepting the gift of the house, the Former Owner’s cousin was shown round the house by the Former Owner and his wife but the cousin was not aware that the Former Owner’s wife had paid the deposit. The Former Owner’s wife, who did not want to emigrate to Australia, is claiming that she is entitled to an interest in the house in consequence of having paid the deposit.
Is the Former Owner’s wife entitled, as a consequence of having paid the deposit, to an interest in the house that is enforceable against the Former Owner’s cousin who now owns the house?
A. Yes, because the house was gifted to the Former Owner’s cousin.
B. No, because the Former Owner’s cousin was unaware that the Former Owner’s wife had paid the deposit.
C. Yes, because the Former Owner’s cousin was aware that the Former Owner’s wife had been living in the house.
D. Yes, because the house had been the matrimonial home.
E. Yes, because the Former Owner’s cousin should have found out that the Former Owner’s wife had paid the deposit.
The correct answer is A
The Former Owner’s cousin, not being a purchaser for value of the legal estate, was bound by the implied trust interest of the Former Owner’s wife arising from her payment of the deposit.
Option B is wrong because it is irrelevant that the Former Owner’s cousin was unaware that the Former Owner’s wife had paid the deposit.
Option C is wrong because it is not relevant that the Former Owner’s wife had been living in the house.
Option D is wrong because it is not relevant that the house had been the matrimonial home.
Option E is wrong because there was no requirement on the part of the Former Owner’s cousin to enquire whether the Former Owner’s wife had paid the deposit.
A solicitor is acting for the buyer of a freehold property with registered title. The buyer plans to extend the property into the garden area to have a larger kitchen and dining space. The seller has told the buyer that the previous owner of the property purchased it from the person next door, and in the transfer deed promised not to alter the exterior without first getting approval from them.
What will the buyer’s solicitor look for when examining the Land Registry official copy of the title to confirm that there is a binding covenant?
A. A restriction on dealings in the Proprietorship Register.
B. An entry referring to a covenant in the Property Register
C. An entry referring to a covenant in the Charges Register.
D. An entry referring to a restriction on dealings in the Property Register.
E. An entry referring to a covenant in the Proprietorship Register.
The correct answer is C
The entry would be a notice referring to the covenant in the Charges Register of Title.
Option A is wrong as the entry should be a notice on the Charges Register of Title not a restriction on dealings.
Option B is wrong as the entry should appear in the Charges Register of Title.
Option D is wrong as the entry should be a notice on the Charges Register of Title and a restriction on dealings would appear in the Proprietorship Register of Title.
Option E is wrong as the entry should appear in the Charges Register of Title
Which one or more of the following transactions will require registration at Land Registry?
A. A sale of an unregistered freehold title.
B. The grant of a lease, by deed, for a term of 3 years.
C. The transfer of an unregistered freehold estate by means of an assent- (An assent is where PR’s transfer land to a beneficiary under a will)
D. The grant of a lease for a term of 8 years.
The correct options are A, C and D
S4 Land Registration Act 2002 contains a list of those transactions which require registration at Land Registry. The list includes the sale, gift, mortgage or assent of a freehold or leasehold which has more than seven years left to run.
To find out the identity of an owner of a registered title you should look at the Property Register of the title at Land Registry.
Is this statement True or False?
The statement is False.
The details of the owner of the property will appear in the Proprietorship Register of the title.
Which ONE of the following statements is CORRECT?
A. The relevant date for assessing actual occupation for the purposes of Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002 is the date of registration of the purchase.
B. The relevant date for assessing actual occupation for the purposes of Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002 is the date of completion of the purchase.
C. The relevant date for assessing whether an interest protected by Schedule 3 paragraphs 1 or 3 LRA 2002 is enforceable against a buyer is the date of exchange of contracts.
D. The relevant date for assessing whether an interest protected by Schedule 3 paragraphs 1 or 3 LRA 2002 is enforceable against a buyer is the date of registration of the purchase.
The correct answer is B
The relevant date for Schedule 3 paragraph 2 is completion (see Abbey National v Cann). The relevant date for the other overriding interests under paragraphs 1 and 3 is also the date of completion of the purchase.
Under Schedule 3 paragraph 3 Land Registration Act 2002, a qualifying easement must, since 13.10.06, be within the actual knowledge of the buyer and obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land and used within the past year.
Is this statement TRUE or FALSE?
The statement is False
The conditions are alternatives, so the easement must EITHER be within the actual knowledge of the buyer OR obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land OR used within the past year.
Which one or more of the following statements are CORRECT?
A. A lease granted by deed for a term of 7 years must be registered as it is a registrable disposition.
B. A right under s 30 Family Law Act 1996 will be protected by Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002 if the claimant is in actual occupation.
C. An easement for 30 years created by deed should be registered as it is a registrable disposition but may alternatively be protected by Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002 as the dominant owner is in actual occupation.
D. A lease for a term of four years created by the formalities set out in s 2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 may be protected by a notice on the register as it is an interest affecting a registered estate (s32 LRA 2002) or alternatively by Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002 if the tenant is in actual occupation.
E. A mortgage created by deed must be registered on the charges register of the title it affects to be legal under s 27 LRA 2002.
The correct answers are D and E
The lease in statement D is equitable because it does not fall within the parol lease exception, being for more than three years, but is created in accordance with s2 LP(MP)A 1989 - an estate contract. It is an interest affecting a registered estate and is protected by a notice on the charges register. If it is not so protected, it may be elevated to overriding status under Schedule 3 paragraph 2 as it is sufficiently proprietary in nature (and if the other requirements of Schedule 3 paragraph 2 are met).
Statement E is a registrable disposition.
Statement A is wrong as a legal lease for exactly 7 years will be overriding under Schedule 3 paragraph 1 LRA 2002.
Statement B is wrong as a right under s 30 Family Law Act 1996 cannot be protected by Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002 - see s 31(10)(b) FLA 1996.
Statement C is wrong as a legal easement for 30 years should be registered as a registrable disposition but cannot be protected by Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002 as the dominant owner is not in actual occupation of the land affected.
Last year the current owners of a farm (with a registered freehold title) signed a deed in which they granted their immediate neighbour, a horse riding school, a right to cross their land. A client bought the farm two months ago and has come to see you because she wants to stop the riding school crossing her land. She says the horses churn up the land and make it very muddy.
What advice would you give the client about whether or not she is bound by the riding school’s easement?
A. The easement is an overriding interest which will bind her under schedule 3 paragraph 1 Land Registration Act 2002.
B. The easement was made by deed, is therefore legal and binds the world, including your client.
C. Your client was not party to the deed creating the easement and is therefore not bound by it.
D. The easement is an overriding interest which will bind her under schedule 3 paragraph 3 Land Registration Act 2002.
E. The easement is a registrable disposition which will only bind her if it was completed by registration at Land Registry.
Option E is the correct answer.
The expressly granted easement by deed is a registrable disposition which will only bind your client if it was completed by registration.
Option A is wrong because schedule 3 para 1 relates to short leases.
Option B is wrong because it is applying the rules which govern unregistered land when the farm has a registered title.
Option C is wrong. An easement is a proprietary interest in land which can bind a purchaser of the land even though they were not party to it.
Option D is wrong because schedule 3 para 3 does not apply to expressly granted easements.
A married couple purchase a registered freehold property with the help of the wife’s parents. The parents contributed half the purchase price and occupy the property. One year after their purchase, the married couple obtain a loan in return for the grant of a mortgage in favour of a lender. The married couple default on the loan and the lender seeks to exercise its power of sale.
Is the lender bound by the interests of the wife’s parents?
A. Yes, the wife’s parents have an overriding interest which is binding on the lender.
B. Yes, the wife’s parents have actual occupation which is binding on the lender.
C. Yes, because the lender has failed to overreach the wife’s parents’ interest.
D. No, because the occupation by the parents occurred after the mortgage was created.
E. No, because the lender has overreached the parents’ beneficial interest under a trust.
The correct option is E.
The lender paid capital money to two trustees (the married couple). This had the effect of lifting the beneficial interests of the parents (as a consequence of their contribution to the purchase price) from the property and to the proceeds of sale (ie the loan advance from the lender). Option C is, therefore, wrong.
Option A is wrong because although the parents may have a beneficial interest under a trust protected as an overriding interest, such an interest has been overreached by the lender.
Option B is wrong as occupation alone does not create an overriding interest. This must be coupled with a proprietary interest in land.
Option D is wrong because the facts clearly indicate that the parents were in occupation prior to the advance by the lender.
A buyer recently completed the purchase of a registered freehold property (‘the Property’). Yesterday, the buyer moved into the Property and was confronted by the neighbouring landowner who claimed to have a lease of the Property for five years from last year and granted by deed.
Will the buyer be bound by the neighbour’s lease?
A. No, because the lease is a legal lease, and so, should have been registered on the charges register.
B. No, because the lease is equitable by nature and, therefore, not binding on the buyer.
C. No, because the lease is equitable and the buyer will only be bound if a notice has been registered.
D. Yes, because the lease is a legal right and, therefore, binds the world.
E. Yes, because it is a legal lease for a term of seven years or less, and so, automatically protected as an overriding interest.
The correct option is E.
A lease is capable of being legal. In order to be legal it must be created by deed (s 52(1) LPA 1925). The facts state that the lease is made by deed. Options B and C are, therefore, wrong.
The lease is for five years and, therefore, cannot be registered as a registrable disposition. Option A is, therefore, wrong.
A five-year legal lease is automatically protected as an overriding interest (Sch 3, para 1 LRA 2002). Option D is, therefore, wrong as it relates to unregistered land and the facts state that the Property is registered.
Paul was the owner of a freehold property called “Homelands”. The property is registered at Land Registry.
In February 2015, Paul made a valid will leaving “Homelands” to his sisters, Tracy and Teresa, to hold on trust for the benefit of his wife for life, remainder to his two adult daughters.
Paul died last month. Tracy and Teresa have asked for advice because Paul’s daughters want the property to be sold but his wife wishes to remain living there and Tracy and Teresa do not know how to deal with the situation.
Which one or more of the following statements is or are CORRECT?
A. Tracy and Teresa can apply to court under s.14 TLATA 1996 to determine whether or not a sale will take place.
B. Paul’s wife can apply to court under s.14 TLATA to determine whether or not a sale will take place.
C. Under s.15 TLATA the court is to have regard to the purpose of the trust.
D. Under s15 TLATA the court is to have regard to the settlor’s intention.
E. Under s.15 TLATA the court is to have regard to the interests of any unsecured creditors of any beneficiary.
F. Under s.15 TLATA the court must act according to the trustees’ wishes if they outnumber the beneficiaries.
The correct answers are A, B, C and D
Statement E is wrong because only the wishes of creditors secured on the property are taken into account.
Statement F is wrong because the court does not give any greater weight to the wishes of the trustees than it does to the wishes of the beneficiaries.
Paul was the owner of a freehold property called “Homelands”. The property is registered at Land Registry.
In February 2015, Paul made a valid will leaving “Homelands” to his sisters, Tracy and Teresa, to hold on trust for the benefit of his wife for life, remainder to his two adult daughters.
Paul died last month. Tracy and Teresa have asked for advice because Paul’s daughters want the property to be sold but his wife wishes to remain living there and Tracy and Teresa do not know how to deal with the situation.
Which one or more of the following statements is or are CORRECT?
A. Either Tracy or Teresa can sell the property and the purchaser of the legal estate will take free of Paul’s wife’s and daughters’ equitable interests.
B. The purchaser must pay the money to all the trustees, being at least two in number or a trust corporation, in order to overreach their interests.
C. The purchaser will be bound by Paul’s wife’s and daughters’ equitable interests if they have entered a restriction on the Register.
D. Paul’s wife could have had an overriding interest which was overreached on a sale by Tracy and Teresa.
The correct answers are B and D
purchasers of the legal estate do not automatically take the property free of the equitable interests. However, provided that the purchaser pays the money to all the trustees being at least two in number, in this case to both Tracy and Teresa, he or she will overreach all the beneficial interests even where there is a restriction on the register or where the beneficial interest is an overriding interest.
If overreaching does not occur, a restriction will prevent registration of the buyer as the new proprietor.
Land is transferred to A and B as “beneficial joint tenants”; A and B provide the purchase price in unequal shares and so equity will imply a tenancy in common.
Is this statement True or False
The statement is False.
On the assumption that the four unities are all present, the express declaration will override the equitable presumption- see Goodman v Gallant.
Jessica, Keith, Lionel and Margaret were friends. In 2015 they purchased the freehold property “Cliff Cottage” for occasional use as a holiday home. The conveyance to them contained an express declaration that they were beneficial joint tenants.
In 2019, Keith wrote letters to each of the others saying that he wanted the property sold so that his share could be paid to him out of the proceeds of sale. His letters were properly delivered. The property was not sold.
Keith died leaving all his property to Nicola.
Which of the following statements correctly describes the effect of Keith’s severance and death on the ownership of the equitable interest?
Hide answer choices
A. Jessica, Lionel and Margaret now hold the entire equitable interest as joint tenants.
B. Nicola becomes a beneficial tenant in common as to one-quarter and the remaining three-quarters are held by Jessica, Lionel and Margaret as joint tenants.
C. Nicola becomes a beneficial tenant in common as to one-third and the remaining two-thirds are held by Jessica, Lionel and Margaret as joint tenants.
D. Nicola, Jessica, Lionel and Margaret now hold one-quarter each as tenants in common.
The correct answer is B
Only Keith becomes a beneficial tenant in common (as to one-quarter) when he serves the notice, and the remaining three-quarters are held by the other three original parties as joint tenants. When Keith dies, his property passes to Nicola, so she becomes a tenant in common in his place.
Jessica, Keith, Lionel and Margaret were friends. In 2015 they purchased the freehold property “Cliff Cottage” for occasional use as a holiday home. The conveyance to them contained an express declaration that they were beneficial joint tenants.
In 2019, Keith wrote letters to each of the others saying that he wanted the property sold so that his share could be paid to him out of the proceeds of sale. His letters were properly delivered. The property was not sold.
Keith died leaving all his property to Nicola.
In 2021 Jessica, by a Deed of Gift, gave her beneficial interest to Nicola. In 2022 Lionel died leaving all his property to Nicola.
Is the following statement True or False?
Both Jessica’s and Lionel’s gifts will pass their beneficial shares in the property to Nicola.
The statement is False.
Beneficial interests held on a joint tenancy cannot pass by will. So, Jessica’s lifetime gift will be effective as an example of severance by alienation which complies with s53(1)(c) LPA 1925, but Lionel’s gift in his will does not pass his share to Nicola.
Jessica, Keith, Lionel and Margaret were friends. In 2015 they purchased the freehold property “Cliff Cottage” for occasional use as a holiday home. The conveyance to them contained an express declaration that they were beneficial joint tenants.
In 2019, Keith wrote letters to each of the others saying that he wanted the property sold so that his share could be paid to him out of the proceeds of sale. His letters were properly delivered. The property was not sold.
Keith died leaving all his property to Nicola.
In 2021 Jessica, by a Deed of Gift, gave her beneficial interest to Nicola. In 2022 Lionel died leaving all his property to Nicola.
Which one of the following statements is CORRECT?
A. If a sale of the property takes place, Margaret will be entitled to a quarter of the proceeds of sale and Nicola will be entitled to the remaining three quarters.
B. If a sale of the property takes place, Margaret will be entitled to three quarters of the proceeds of sale and Nicola will be entitled to the remaining quarter.
C. If a sale of the property takes place, Margaret and Nicola will each be entitled to receive half of the proceeds of sale.
Statement C is correct.
Nicola took Keith’s share after he severed his beneficial interest and she gets Jessica’s share under her life-time gift. Margaret already had her own interest in the property and she acquired Lionel’s when he died by right of survivorship.
Jessica, Keith, Lionel and Margaret were friends. In 2015 they purchased the freehold property “Cliff Cottage” for occasional use as a holiday home. The conveyance to them contained an express declaration that they were beneficial joint tenants.
In 2019, Keith wrote letters to each of the others saying that he wanted the property sold so that his share could be paid to him out of the proceeds of sale. His letters were properly delivered. The property was not sold.
Keith died leaving all his property to Nicola.
In 2021 Jessica, by a Deed of Gift, gave her beneficial interest to Nicola. In 2022 Lionel died leaving all his property to Nicola.
Jessica has now died. Nicola is in occupation of the property.
Assuming the title to the land is unregistered, which one of the following statements is CORRECT?
A. Nicola and Margaret hold the legal estate as joint tenants on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equity. If the land is sold by them the sale will overreach the equitable interests arising under the trust as the sale will be effected by all of the trustees being at least two in number.
B. Margaret holds the legal estate on trust for herself and Nicola as tenants in common. If Margaret sells the land a purchaser will take subject to Nicola’s equitable interest because Nicola has gone into occupation and so has an overriding interest under Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002. It is not possible to overreach an overriding interest.
C. Margaret owns the legal estate for herself and Nicola as tenants in common in equity. If she sells the land, a purchaser risks buying subject to Nicola’s equitable interest (the purchaser may have constructive notice of Nicola’s equitable interest as she occupies the house). Margaret should first appoint a second trustee to overreach Nicola’s equitable interest.
statement C is correct
The only way for Margaret to sell is for her to appoint a second trustee. Statement A is false as Nicola is not on the legal title; she has an equitable interest only. Statement B is incorrect as the title is unregistered so the LRA 2002 will not apply (if this were registered title, note that it is possible to overreach an overriding interest under Schedule 3 para 2 LRA 2002 if it is protecting an interest under a trust).
Two brothers bought a property together and both their names were entered on the proprietorship register. The only entries on the proprietorship register are (1) their details and (2) the purchase price paid for the property. One of the brothers has died (‘the deceased’) and the other brother is selling the property to your client.
Which one of the following statements represents the best advice to give your client about what steps must be taken to enable your client to register his title at the Land Registry?
A. It will be necessary to overreach the deceased’s beneficial interest as the beneficial title was held by both brothers as tenants in common.
B. It will not be necessary to overreach the deceased’s beneficial interest as the beneficial title was held by both brothers as joint tenants.
c. It will not be necessary to overreach the deceased’s beneficial interest as the beneficial title was held by both brothers as tenants in common.
D. It will be necessary to overreach the deceased’s beneficial interest as the beneficial title was held by both brothers as tenants in common and it will be necessary to appoint a second trustee to enable a valid receipt to be given to your client.
E. It will not be necessary to overreach the deceased’s beneficial interest as the beneficial title was held by both brothers as joint tenants but evidence of the deceased death will be required when your client’s title is registered at the Land Registry.
The correct statement is Statement E.
In the absence of a restriction on the proprietorship register in a co-ownership situation the beneficial interest is held as joint tenants and the rule of survivorship applies. Options B and E are both correct but Option E is the best answer as evidence of death will be needed to prove who is the sole surviving legal and beneficial owner. Options A and D are therefore wrong.
Option C is also wrong as even if it were held as a tenant in common the deceased’s beneficial interest would need to be overreached.
A solicitor acts for a man and his partner in the purchase of a freehold property (‘the Property’) for £350,000. The partner contributed £150,000 and the man contributed the remaining £200,000. The Property is transferred to them as express beneficial joint tenants in equity.
Which of the following best describes how the Property is held?
A. The Property is held legally and beneficially as joint tenants due to the express declaration of trust.
B. The Property is held as a tenancy in common due to the unequal contributions made to the purchase price.
C. The equitable interests are held as a joint tenancy as the express declaration of trust is conclusive.
D. The equitable interests are held in a tenancy in common as the presumption for a joint tenancy has been rebutted by unequal contributions.
E. The Property is held as a joint tenancy as the four unities are present.
The correct answer is Option A.
The man and his partner hold the legal estate as trustees as joint tenants (s 1(6) LPA 1925). The four unities are present which would indicate a joint tenancy (or a tenancy in common).
Option E is correct but is not the best answer as it does not reflect the express declaration.
There is an express declaration that the man and his partner hold the equitable interests as joint tenants. Option C is, therefore, correct, but not the best answer as it does not take account of how the legal estate is held.
The express declaration is conclusive, notwithstanding the unequal contributions made to the purchase price. Options B and D are, therefore, wrong.
Three postgraduate students (a biologist, a chemist and an engineer) bought a house to live in together three years ago. They held the legal estate and the beneficial interests as joint tenants.
Six months ago the biologist decided that she wanted to move out and sold her interest to the chemist, complying with the relevant statutory formalities. Unfortunately the engineer was killed in a car crash last week. Her will left all of her estate to her sister.
Which of the following options best describes how the house is now held?
A. When the biologist sold her interest to the chemist, this severed the legal estate and the beneficial interests. The chemist is now the sole legal and beneficial owner.
B. When the biologist sold her interest to the chemist, this had no effect on the legal estate. The beneficial joint tenancy was severed leaving the chemist and the engineer as joint tenants (2/3) and the chemist as tenant in common (1/3). When the engineer died this left the biologist and the chemist as joint tenants of the legal estate and the chemist as the sole beneficial owner.
C. When the biologist sold her interest to the chemist, this had no effect on the legal estate. The beneficial joint tenancy was severed leaving the chemist and the engineer as joint tenants (2/3) and the chemist as tenant in common (1/3). When the engineer died, her legal interest passed by survivorship to her sister and her beneficial interest passed by will to her sister. The legal owners are the chemist and the sister as joint tenants and the beneficial interests are held by the chemist (2/3) and the sister (1/3) as tenants in common.
D. When the biologist sold her interest to the chemist, this had no effect on the legal estate. The beneficial joint tenancy was severed leaving the chemist and the engineer as joint tenants (2/3) and the chemist as tenant in common (1/3). When the engineer died, this left the biologist, the chemist and the sister as joint tenants of the legal estate and the chemist (2/3) and the sister (1/3) as tenants in common in equity.
E. When the biologist sold her interest to the chemist, this had no effect on the legal estate. The beneficial joint tenancy was severed leaving the chemist (2/3) and the engineer (1/3) as tenants in common. When the engineer died, this left the biologist and the chemist as joint tenants of the legal estate and the chemist (2/3) and the sister (1/3) as tenants in common in equity.
Option B is correct.
When the biologist sold her interest in the house to the chemist six months ago this had no effect on the legal estate, which cannot be severed (s1(6) LPA 1925). When the engineer died last week the legal estate passed by survivorship to the biologist and the chemist, who are now the trustees.
The beneficial joint tenancy was severed by alienation because the formalities for a disposition of an equitable interest in s.53(1)(c) LPA 1925 were satisfied when the biologist sold her share to the chemist six months ago. This left the chemist and the engineer as joint tenants of 2/3rds and the chemist as tenant in common of 1/3rd. When the engineer died last week her interest passed by survivorship to the chemist (her will was of no effect in relation to the house), leaving the chemist as the sole beneficial owner.
