W2 Estates and Interests in Land Flashcards
What are the types of estates in land?
Main: Leasehold and Freehold
Rare: Commonhold and flying freehold
What is the statutory definition of a freehold?
‘Fee simple absolute in possession’ – s1(1)(a) LPA 1925
What rights does a freehold grant to the owner?
Indefinite exclusive possession and the ability to transfer it to another (sale/gift/inheritance)
What is a commonhold?
An estate allowing individual flat freeholders to hold the common parts of the building as a commonhold
What is a flying freehold?
A freehold extending over the airspace of someone else’s land
How can a freehold become bona vacantia?
If the owner of the freehold dies wihout an heir (or freeholding company accidentally dissolves)
What is bona vacantia?
When a freehold reverts to the Crown by the owner dying without an heir
How are freeholds created?
Trick question - they are not created as all are technically in existence due to historic grants from the Crown.
Acquiring a freehold is always a transfer of the estate.
What are the formality requirements for a disposition/transfer of land?
Requires a Deed (s52 LPA 1925)
New owner must be registered on the freehold title (ss4 and 27 LRA 2002)
s4 LRA 2002
Indicates when title must be registered, including upon transfer of an estate
s52 LPA 1925
All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed
What is a deed?
An instrument which:
Makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the parties to it
Is validly executed by the person making it or the parties to it
Is witnessed/attested
Is delivered/signed.
s1 LP(MP)A 1989
Describes the requirements of a deed
What does LP(MP)A stand for?
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
How do the formality requirements differ when a company buys land?
Two directors, or director and secretary, must sign the Deed
What is substantive registration?
Registration on the title
s27 LRA 2002
States that a disposition of a registered estate or charge does not operate at law until registration requirements are met
Parts of the Register Extract: What is the property register?
Describes the land and estate comprised in the title
Part of the Register Extract: What is the Proprietorship Register?
Class of title and identifies the owners
Part of the Register Extract: What is the Charges Register?
Describes any charges or other matters affecting the land
Who grants a leasehold?
The owner of the freehold, or a superior leaseholder
What is the technical definition of a leasehold?
Term of years absolute
Auth: s1(1)(b) LPA 1925
What does a “term of years absolute” mean?
Exclusive possession of a parcel of land for a limited time
Stages of the sale of an estate in land
1) Contract
2) Completion
3) Registration
What is completion?
When the Deed of Transfer/Lease is executed
What are the formality requirements for the contract of a sale of land?
Must be in writing
Must include all terms expressly agreed in one document (set out or by reference)
Signed by each party (or when party where contracts are exchanged)
s2 LPMPA 1989
Lists the formality requirements for contracts for sale of land
McCausland v Duncan Lawrie (1997)
Facts: Solicitors managed to set completion date for a Sunday. Tried to change the completion date over the phone. Did not complay with s2 LPMPA as the variation was not in writing.
Significance: Contracts for sale of land can be enforced by specific performance (because land is such a specific commodity – no two pieces the same).
Wright v Leonard
Facts: Agreement for the lease of a show flat with furniture. Offer was accepted conditional on a particular completion date, which was postponed. The seller secretly removed the furniture, saying it was tied to the earlier completion date. Completion occurred, dispute arose for the furniture. Court rectified the contract to the earlier date and allowed claimant damages for breach of contract.
Significance: Courts can rectify sale contract if missing terms
What is an interest in land?
Proprietary rights in land that are not estates.
Includes easements, restrictive covenants, mortgages, options, etc.
s1(2) LPA 1925
Lists interests and charges capable of subsisting or being conveyed or created at law
s1(3) LPA 1925
All other interests, estates, and charges over land (apart from those listed in s1.1 and s1.2) take effect as equitable interests
Does a legal easement created on unregistered land require registration?
No
Walsh v Lonsdale
Facts: Defendant agreed to grant a lease to the claimant of a mill for 7 years. Failed deed requirements. Court ruled an equitable lease existed, as equity “looks on that as done which ought to be done”. Remedy was specific performance.
Significance: Failure of formalities creates an equitable lease if capable of specific performance.
Are interests in land capable of being equitable?
Yes. Auth: s1(3) LPA 1925
What formalities are required for a legal interest in land?
Deed
Registration
Contract optional
How do equitable interests arise?
Through contracts compliant with s2 LP(MP)A 1989 and capable of specific performance - Walsh v Lonsdale
Failure to register
Failure to create a Deed
Do equitable interests require formalities for disposition?
Yes
Auth: s53 LPA 1925
s53 LPA 1925
1a) Any interest in land can only be created or disposed of by the person creating/conveying (or their agent) in writing, by will, or by operation of law.
1b) A declaration of a trust of land (or interest therein) must be done by signed writing by the person able to declare the trust
1c) A disposition of an equitable interest or trust must be in writing and signed by the disposer/their agent
What happens if a Deed for an interest in land is unregistered?
An equitable interest arises
What happens if a document creating an interest in land does not comply with Deed requirements?
An equitable interest arises
Which estates and interests can arise without any formalities (6)?
1) Legal leases three years or less
2) Easements implied into a land transaction
3) Easements acquired through prescription (long use)
4) Beneficial interests under an implied trust
5) Rights acquired through proprietary estoppel
6) Rights acquired through adverse possession
Tahir v Faizi
Facts: One party was legal owner and responsible for the mortgage, but all payments were made by funds provided by the other party and not intended as a gift. Court found in favour of the paying party, declaring them to have a 100% beneficial interest in the property and the other party had legal title under a resulting trust.
Significance: Court may find a ‘purchase money resulting trust’ without formalities
Lloyds Bank v Rosset
Facts: Wife claimed a share of property on basis that she supervised building works and understood it to be part of her equitable claim. Court failed it because it wasn’t the common intention of the parties, and her detriment was only minimal.
Significance: Court may find a ‘common intention constructive trust’ if there was common intention and detriment to the claimant
Stack v Dowden
Facts: Property conveyed to joint names of a cohabiting couple with no explicit declaration of their respective interests. Starting point for division was joint legal ownership = joint beneficial ownership. House had been bought with proceeds from defendant’s sale of previous property, and defendant’s savings, but mortgage was in both names. Both contributed to mortgage, but defendant moreso. Onus is on the party seeking to show that the beneficial interests differ from legal interests. Since they kept their finances very separate, it was indicative that they did not intend equal shares.
Significance: Court can vary the terms of an existing implied trust
What is proprietary estoppel?
A proprietary right in land which crystallises into a specific right unpon a successful claim
What is required for a proprietary estoppel claim to succeed?
Party A makes a representation to party B regarding an interest in land
B relies on the representation to their detriment
It would be unconscionable for A to deny the interest
Auth: Gillet v Holt
Gillet v Holt
Facts: Farmhand based his entire career on a promise by the farm owner that he would inherit the farm and the business. Farmhand was not formally paid. Farm owner tried to give the farm to someone else. Farm hand made a successful claim for estoppel.
Significance: Authority for proprietary estoppel
What is the remedy granted for proprietary estoppel?
Cour may grant a range of rights
Jennings v Rice
Facts: Woman died intestate, but had promised her house and furniture to her gardener/handyman/carer upon her death. In the last decade or so of her life, she had stopped paying him. Gardener appealed against an award of £200,000, as the house was valued over £400,000. The £200k award had been valued based on several factors, including the missed payments. As such, it was considered proportionate to the detriment he had suffered.
Significance: Proprietary estoppel requires proportionality between the expectation and detriment.
Is proprietary estoppel a valid fallback where there’s no valid contract?
No
Auth: Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row
Facts: Property developer and property owner had an oral agreement. Developer spent a lot of time and money getting planning permission, then the owner refused to proceed on the agreed terms/enter into a binding contract. Developer tried to argue for proprietary estoppel/constructive trust, court denied him this as he was fully aware the agreement was subject to contract and not legally enforceable (commercial context supports this). Developer was granted payment for services in obtaining planning permission instead.
Significance: Proprietary estoppel is not a fallback for lack of a valid contract
Matchmove v Dowding
Facts: Oral agreement for sale of land, but commercial deal had sufficiently advanced, money had changed hands already, so was found to be a constructive trust. The parties had considered the agreement to be immediately binding, and the prospective buyer had acted to his detriment in reliance upon it. Judge reasoned based on both proprietary estoppel and constructive trust.
Significance: Demonstrates the uncertain relationship between proprietary estoppel and constructive trust
What is adverse possession?
A proprietary possessory right arising from actual possession (even by trespass)
What are the requirements for a claim in adverse possession?
1) Possession must be truly adverse
2) Requisite time period must have elapsed (12 years)
3) If registered land, the freeholder must have been given notice of the claim and had the opportunity to reject
Pye v Graham
Facts: Defendants refused to renew Claimant’s licence to use land for grazing. Claimants continued to use it without permission. They were found to acquire title by adverse possession (even though farming the land was technically beneficial to defendant owner) as they had factual possession for 12+ years and intention to possess. The necessary intention was intention to possess (not own) and exclude paper owner as far as reasonably possible.
Significance: Criteria for “truly adverse” for adverse possession claims
What makes possession truly adverse?
1) Squatter must exercise the necessary degree of physical custody and control, showing an intention to possess the land
2) Squatter had to intend to exclude the world at lard, including the paper owner as far as reasonably practicable
3) Degree of physical control is dependant on the nature of land and manner of usage
4) Squatter must treat the land in the manner of an occupying owner and no other individual must have done so
Indicates when title must be registered, including upon transfer of an estate
s4 LRA 2002
All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed
s52 LPA 1925
Describes the requirements of a deed
s1 LP(MP)A 1989
States that a disposition of a registered estate or charge does not operate at law until registration requirements are met
s27 LRA 2002
Lists the formality requirements for contracts for sale of land
s2 LPMPA 1989
Facts: Solicitors managed to set completion date for a Sunday. Tried to change the completion date over the phone. Did not complay with s2 LPMPA as the variation was not in writing.
Significance: Contracts for sale of land can be enforced by specific performance (because land is such a specific commodity – no two pieces the same).
McCausland v Duncan Lawrie (1997)
Facts: Agreement for the lease of a show flat with furniture. Offer was accepted conditional on a particular completion date, which was postponed. The seller secretly removed the furniture, saying it was tied to the earlier completion date. Completion occurred, dispute arose for the furniture. Court rectified the contract to the earlier date and allowed claimant damages for breach of contract.
Significance: Courts can rectify sale contract if missing terms
Wright v Leonard
Lists interests and charges capable of subsisting or being conveyed or created at law
s1(2) LPA 1925
All other interests, estates, and charges over land (apart from those listed in s1.1 and s1.2) take effect as equitable interests
s1(3) LPA 1925
Facts: Defendant agreed to grant a lease to the claimant of a mill for 7 years. Failed deed requirements. Court ruled an equitable lease existed, as equity “looks on that as done which ought to be done”. Remedy was specific performance.
Significance: Failure of formalities creates an equitable lease if capable of specific performance.
Walsh v Lonsdale
1a) Any interest in land can only be created or disposed of by the person creating/conveying (or their agent) in writing, by will, or by operation of law.
1b) A declaration of a trust of land (or interest therein) must be done by signed writing by the person able to declare the trust
1c) A disposition of an equitable interest or trust must be in writing and signed by the disposer/their agent
s53 LPA 1925
Facts: One party was legal owner and responsible for the mortgage, but all payments were made by funds provided by the other party and not intended as a gift. Court found in favour of the paying party, declaring them to have a 100% beneficial interest in the property and the other party had legal title under a resulting trust.
Significance: Court may find a ‘purchase money resulting trust’ without formalities
Tahir v Faizi
Facts: Wife claimed a share of property on basis that she supervised building works and understood it to be part of her equitable claim. Court failed it because it wasn’t the common intention of the parties, and her detriment was only minimal.
Significance: Court may find a ‘common intention constructive trust’ if there was common intention and detriment to the claimant
Lloyds Bank v Rosset
Facts: Property conveyed to joint names of a cohabiting couple with no explicit declaration of their respective interests. Starting point for division was joint legal ownership = joint beneficial ownership. House had been bought with proceeds from defendant’s sale of previous property, and defendant’s savings, but mortgage was in both names. Both contributed to mortgage, but defendant moreso. Onus is on the party seeking to show that the beneficial interests differ from legal interests. Since they kept their finances very separate, it was indicative that they did not intend equal shares.
Significance: Court can vary the terms of an existing implied trust
Stack v Dowden
Facts: Farmhand based his entire career on a promise by the farm owner that he would inherit the farm and the business. Farmhand was not formally paid. Farm owner tried to give the farm to someone else. Farm hand made a successful claim for estoppel.
Significance: Authority for proprietary estoppel
Gillet v Holt
Facts: Woman died intestate, but had promised her house and furniture to her gardener/handyman/carer upon her death. In the last decade or so of her life, she had stopped paying him. Gardener appealed against an award of £200,000, as the house was valued over £400,000. The £200k award had been valued based on several factors, including the missed payments. As such, it was considered proportionate to the detriment he had suffered.
Significance: Proprietary estoppel requires proportionality between the expectation and detriment.
Jennings v Rice
Facts: Property developer and property owner had an oral agreement. Developer spent a lot of time and money getting planning permission, then the owner refused to proceed on the agreed terms/enter into a binding contract. Developer tried to argue for proprietary estoppel/constructive trust, court denied him this as he was fully aware the agreement was subject to contract and not legally enforceable (commercial context supports this). Developer was granted payment for services in obtaining planning permission instead.
Significance: Proprietary estoppel is not a fallback for lack of a valid contract
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row
Facts: Oral agreement for sale of land, but commercial deal had sufficiently advanced, money had changed hands already, so was found to be a constructive trust. The parties had considered the agreement to be immediately binding, and the prospective buyer had acted to his detriment in reliance upon it. Judge reasoned based on both proprietary estoppel and constructive trust.
Significance: Demonstrates the uncertain relationship between proprietary estoppel and constructive trust
Matchmove v Dowding
Facts: Defendants refused to renew Claimant’s licence to use land for grazing. Claimants continued to use it without permission. They were found to acquire title by adverse possession (even though farming the land was technically beneficial to defendant owner) as they had factual possession for 12+ years and intention to possess. The necessary intention was intention to possess (not own) and exclude paper owner as far as reasonably possible.
Significance: Criteria for “truly adverse” for adverse possession claims
Pye v Graham
