Trust of Land Cases
n
0.0 / 5
- Created by: Amy
- Created on: 05-05-17 18:17
Re Power – What is an investment of land?
Testator said his property would be invested by the trustee – go to B for the benefit of his widow. The widow said not to invest it – she wanted to live in the property. Investment means gaining an income from the property (rent it out).
1 of 27
Chan v Leung – Choosing who occupies
Beneficiaries had been living together in a large house, they split up and could not live together. Beneficiary argued that the house was so large that they should live together in it - Judge rejected the argument
2 of 27
Jones v Challenger – concurrent interests pre 1996 (under s.30 LPA 1925)
Couple divorces and husband re-married. Wife tried to force a sale – the purpose of the house as for them to live together – this has failed – trust for sale could be forced. Court explicit – not thinking they had discretion.
3 of 27
Abbey National v Moss - concurrent interests pre 1996 (under s.30 LPA 1925)
Husband died and daughter moved it becoming a co-owner tried to force the mentally ill mum out – the court refused to sell but made it clear they only did this in exceptional cases of unfairness.
4 of 27
Re Citro (a bankrupt) - concurrent interests pre 1996 (under s.30 LPA 1925)
Husband became bankrupt – sale should be postponed until children turn 16 – court showing discretion. CA overturned it however and ordered a sale – when a creditor is involved the court is less sympathetic – favour the creditors rights.
5 of 27
Re Holiday - concurrent interests pre 1996 (under s.30 LPA 1925)
Took into account minors in the property but court still holding a pro-creditor policy.
6 of 27
The Mortgage Corporation v Shaire - concurrent interest post 1996 (Under TOLATA 1996)
Looking at the factors of the case – had to be weighed up by the courts – decided on the facts of the case. Incurred debts without wife knowing when he died the courts did not order a sale - Fraudulent debts she had no idea about.
7 of 27
Bank of Ireland Home Mortgages Ltd v Bell - concurrent interest post 1996 (Under TOLATA 1996)
Couple separated and husband defaulted on his mortgage, wife lived in the property with a nearly 18 year old child – his interests were less important than a small child – order of sale made.
8 of 27
First National Bank plc v Achampong - concurrent interest post 1996 (Under TOLATA 1996)
The dicta of the case is important – the effect of refusing an order to sale is to condemn a bank to wait.
9 of 27
Edwards v Bank of Scotland Plc - concurrent interest post 1996 (Under TOLATA 1996)
Couple owned a business and a home together – wife got a fraudulent mortgage. Court distinguished this from Shaire – husband was 77 and would be better off from the sale so the sale was ordered.
10 of 27
AG Securities v Vaughan – authority for the unities in joint tenancy.
Moved in at different times with a different deed – the four unities not present so no joint tenancy here. Cannot also have a joint tenancy on a licence as this is not an estate.
11 of 27
Jones v Jones - tenancy in common
Rent is not normally needed between tenants in common (common law rule).
12 of 27
Denis v McDonalds – tenancy in common
Sometimes rent might awarded in circumstances of family breakdown even where there is a tenancy in common. Whether or not the judge deems it fair to do so. Compensate the tenant who has moved out.
13 of 27
Re Pavlou – tenancy in common
Occupation rent ordered after a husband left. Off-set against improvement that the wife compensation via rent.
14 of 27
Murogy v Gooch – tenancy in common
Was not forced to pay rent but was forced to pay mortgage payments.
15 of 27
Jones v Kernott – tenancy in common
Traditionally an equitable concept – but if the unities are present, equity in fact readily recognises a joint tenancy. It is the default mechanism for both law and equity.
16 of 27
Bernard v Josephs – tenancy in common
When partners split, one of the partners might argue for the trust to take the form of a tenancy in common so that shares can be unequal.
17 of 27
Re Buchanan Wollaston’s Convetance – tenancy in common
4 people bought land intending to keep the sea view. Agreed they would not sell without the consent of all the tenants. Trust for a purpose – judge found a trust.
18 of 27
Bull v Bull – tenancy in common
son tried to force his mum out of a property they lived in together. Judge looked for the purpose – the purpose was to live together – son was not allowed to force her out.
19 of 27
Quigley v Masterson - severance
Clear evidence of severance – the document handed into court shows the intention of the tenants to split up the property.
20 of 27
Burgess v Rawnsley – severance
‘An uncommunicated declaration by one party to the other or indeed a mere verbal notice by one party to another clearly cannot operate as severance.’
21 of 27
Re Buchanan Wollaston’s Conveyance – serverance
If the parties agree in scooping out the property this is fine.
22 of 27
Re Draper’s Conveyance – severance
Starting a legal process to divorce has been held to be serverance.
23 of 27
Nielson-Jones v Fedden
Serverance is normally in equal shares unless there is an express declaration otherwise.
24 of 27
Greenfield v Greenfield – severance
Course of conduct matters but so does intention.
25 of 27
Carr v Isard – wills and severance
When a joint tenant makes a will leaving a share in property to another, this is not enough to bring about severance.
26 of 27
Davis v Smith – severance
Parties didn’t give written notice of severance. Court of dealings however showed intention to split the property – intersected a solicitor to sell the property in a marriage breakdown – severance.
27 of 27
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Beneficiaries had been living together in a large house, they split up and could not live together. Beneficiary argued that the house was so large that they should live together in it - Judge rejected the argument
Back
Chan v Leung – Choosing who occupies
Card 3
Front
Couple divorces and husband re-married. Wife tried to force a sale – the purpose of the house as for them to live together – this has failed – trust for sale could be forced. Court explicit – not thinking they had discretion.
Back
Card 4
Front
Husband died and daughter moved it becoming a co-owner tried to force the mentally ill mum out – the court refused to sell but made it clear they only did this in exceptional cases of unfairness.
Back
Card 5
Front
Husband became bankrupt – sale should be postponed until children turn 16 – court showing discretion. CA overturned it however and ordered a sale – when a creditor is involved the court is less sympathetic – favour the creditors rights.
Back
Similar Law resources:
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
Comments
No comments have yet been made