Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Land Law > Trusts & Coownership > Flashcards

Trusts & Coownership Flashcards

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

Resulting trust:

A

Contribution to purchase price: share proportionate to contribution (Dyer v Dyer)

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

Contributions to mortgage payments suffices for resulting trust

A

Laskar v Laskar

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

Where property purchased in joint names for joint occupation and both responsible for mortgage: no resulting trust arising from contributing in unequal shares

A

Jones v Kernott

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

Constructive trust is based on intention of parties:
Express common intention
Inferred common intention

A

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

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

Trustee may require one beneficial owner to pay occupation rent to beneficiary whose right to occupy had been excluded or restricted as way of compensation

A

Dennis v McDonald

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Obligation to pay occupation rent to other beneficiary as compensation does not extent to beneficiaries who voluntarily vacate

A

Murphy v Gooch: relationship breakdown held not to be voluntary

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

Trustees can physically partition land to allow different beneficiaries to occupy exclusively

A

Rodway v Landy

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

Express declaration to hold as tenants in common: conclusive as to size of shares

A

Re Pavlou

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

If there is express declaration as to how equitable title is to be held, this prevails

A

Pink v Lawrence

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

No express declaration as to equitable ownership: equity follows law so joint tenancy

A

Cowcher v Cowcher

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

If no express declaration as to equitable ownership, joint tenancy unless words of severance present

A

Eh “in equal shares” (Payne v Webb)

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

If no express declaration as to equitable ownership, joint tenancy unless unequal contributions to purchase price: undivided shares in proportion to respective contributions

A

Bull v Bull

Stack v Dowden: no application where family home unless evidence to contrary (confined in Jones v Kernott)

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

If no express declaration as to equitable ownership, joint tenancy unless property purchased for commercial enterprise

A

Lake v Craddock

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

If no express declaration as to equitable ownership, joint tenancy unless coowners are mortgagees (two lenders pool money to give borrower single loan, who grants single mortgage: lenders have tenancy in common)

A

Morley v Bird

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

Recognised modes of severance falling under “other acts or things”

A 
Williams v Hensman:
Act operating on own share
Mutual agreement
Mutual conduct
Homicide (unlawful killing of another joint tenant = severance (Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Severance cannot be done by will

A

Re Caines

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

Generally, severed share quantified on basis of equality, irrespective of initial contributions

A

Goodman v Gallant

x number of joint tenants: each has 1/xth share when sever

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

Possible to be big both joint tenant and tenant in common at same time over same property

A

Wright v Gibbons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Divorce documentation should never amount to effective severance as not sufficiently irrevocable

A

Nielsen-Jones v Fedden

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

If send written notice to sever by normal post, must prove it actually arrived

A

Kinch v Bullard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Written notice to sever need not have been read

A

Re 88 Berkley Road

22
Q

Entering specifically enforceable contract to sell is act operating on own share to sever

A

Brown v Raindle

23
Q

Mortgages beneficial interest: act operating on own share so severance

A

First National Securities v Hegarty

24
Q

Bankruptcy = involuntary alienation so severance as act operating on own share

A

Re Pavlou

25
Q

Commencement of litigation is act operating on own share so severance provided intention to sever is final at commencement of proceedings

A

Re Draper’s Conveyance

26
Q

Mutual agreement to sever must be between all beneficiaries

A

Wright v Gibbons

27
Q

Mutual agreement to sever need not be specifically enforceable contract

A

Burgess v Rawnsley

28
Q

Mutual agreement to sever must be fixed and unchanging so must go beyond “agreement in principle”

A

Gore and Snell v Carpenter

29
Q

Must be unequivocal intention to sever when severing through mutual agreement. Can be implied eh agreeing upon death interests will pass to child

A

Morley v McDonald

30
Q

Agreement to merely sell not sufficient to sever through mutual agreement unless also agree to sever proceeds

A

Davis v Smith

31
Q

Execution of mutual wills indicates common intention to sever through mutual conduct

A

Re Wilford’s Estate

32
Q

Negotiations between joint tenants in relation to each other’s share can result in severance but mere offer and counter offer not sufficient

A

Burgess v Rawnsley

33
Q

Where express declaration of trust of land: conclusive as to nature and extent of beneficial rights

A

Pettitt v Pettitt

34
Q

Factors under s 15 TOLATA not exhaustive: can consider other factors

A

Eg interest of disabled adult (First National Bank v Achampang)

35
Q

Case law pre-TOLATA must be treated with caution

A

Mortgage Corporation v Shaire (because emphasis has moved from duty to sell to mere power to sell)

36
Q

Where purpose for which property purchased can still be fulfilled, court inclined not to order sale under s 14 TOLATA

A

Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance

37
Q

Where purpose property bought was home for couple: relationship breakdown means purpose dead

A

Jones v Challenger

Presence of minors may sustain purpose for longer (Re Ever’s Trust)

38
Q

Court inclined to order sale of property under s 14 TOLATA where property too big for sole occupation

A

Jackson v Jackson

39
Q

Court may postpone sale of property under s 14 TOLATA to enable coowners to buy out other coowner

A

Ali v Hussein

40
Q

Court may postpone sale of property under s 14 TOLATA if one of coowners is ill

A

Bank of Ireland Home Mortgages v Bell

41
Q

Court may postpone sale of property under s 14 TOLATA to allow husband and wife to conclude private sale and find alternative property

A

Mayes v Mayes

42
Q

Court may refuse to order sale under s 14 TOLATA but order occupying coowner to pay rent to other as compensation

A

Dennis v McDonald

43
Q

When determining whether to order sale under s 14 TOLATA (application by trustee in bankruptcy), considerations cannot include needs of bankrupt

A

Everitt v Budhram: expressly excluded under s 335A Insolvency Act 1986

44
Q

Order for sale under s 14 TOLATA postponed for 18 months as spouse had schizophrenia

A

Nicholls v Lan

45
Q

Order for sale under s 14 TOLATA postponed to 3 months after bankrupt’s death

A

Re Bremner: bankrupt had terminal cancer with life expectancy of 6 months

46
Q

Order for sale under s 14 TOLATA indefinitely postponed as spouse had severe illness and restricted mobility

A

Claughton v Charalambous

47
Q

Disruption of education not exceptional enough to justify postpone order for sale under s 14 TOLATA

A

Re Citro

48
Q

Order for sale under s 14 TOLATA postponed for 3 years as eldest child was severely disabled through cerebral palsy

A

Re Haghighat

49
Q

Courts recognised broader interpretation of what qualifies as exceptional may be needed when considering ordering sale under s 14 TOLATA by trustee in bankruptcy to not infringe Art 8

A

Berca v Mears and Donohoe v Ingram: still not exceptional enough.

Held usual stress and upheaval of selling family home not exceptional

50
Q

Confirmed s 335A Insolvency Act 1986 does not infringe Art 8

A

Ford and another v Alexander

Land Law (5 decks)

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