Co Ownership Flashcards

1
Q

Tenancy in common

A

Collectively all tenants in common own the whole of the property. But every tenant may have his undivided share. Unity of possession.

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

Four unities

A

Unity of time
Unity of interest
Unity of title
Unity of interest

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

Joint tenancy

A

4 unities, no share of the property. Survivorsip.

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

Survivorship

A

When a joint tenant dies, the surviving joint tenant takes over the whole property. There is no sucession, there is no need for formality. It is autoomatic and instantaneous and death. Law of taxation doent follow the land law. Surviving joint tenant s are therefore not immune from inheritance tax liabilitties. A joint tenant cannot leave anything in a will. Nobody can suceed theWhen parties do not like the potential consequenes of survivorship. They would choose to adopt tenancy in common instead.

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

Consider joint tenant and tenancy in common

A

1st step is four unities. If there are 4 unities, the law will presume a joint tenancy. However, to conclude that it is joint tenancy. Words of severance will indicate tenancy in common. If the deed is silent, or ambigous common law prefers joint tenancy.

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

Serverance

A

Is the process where a joint tenancy is converted into a tenancy in common. A joint tenant can serve a notice in writing on all other. The notice does not have to be in any specific form, or to contain any specific wording. So long as the intentiion is clear… The notice does not have to be read or understood by the recipent.

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

Kinch v Bullard [1999] 1 WLR 423

A

A wife facing imminent death decided o serve the joint tenancy with her husband and do something with her share. She posted the notice. But then the husband had a heart attack and was hospitalised in critical condition. Estimating, correctly, that the husband would die before her, she intercepted her own notice on delivery of the post and destroyed it. The court held that serverance was effective on the sending of the notice. Serverance cannnot be undone or withdrawn.

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

Williams v Hensman

A

Circumstances which severance arises

(1) acting upon one’s own share: the S starts to act if he has individual share
(2) mutual agreement
(3) course of dealing, mutual conduct

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

Burgess

A

Lord Denning reject the idea that negotiation was seen as mutual agreement or course of dealing.

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

S.1(6) LPA 1925

A

Legal title cannot be held by an infant.

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

S.34 LPA 1925

A

Limit the numer of trustees (legal owners) in land to four

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

S.1(6), s.34 and s.36 LPA 1925

A

Collectivey makes sure that the legal title to land can only be held in joint tenancy.

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

S1(1) LPA 1925

A

Recognises only 2 types of legal estate. Fee simple absolute in possession and term of a year absolute. Others can only exist in equity.

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

S.12 TOLATA; s.11

A

Beneficiaries enjoy the right to occupy land. Trustees have a statutory obligation to consult beneficiaries of full age.

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

S.14 TOLATA

A

A statutory mechanism for dispute resolution.

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

S.2 and s.27 LPA 1925

A

Established the statutory mechanism for overreaching benefiiary’s interest in land.

17
Q

City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54

A

Parents had their beneficial title of the house held on trust by thheir daughter and son-in-law. The trustees mortgaged the house without without the beneficiary’s knowledge. Trustees defaulted and their mortgagee anted repossession. They were successful because they paid money to trustees and any beneficial interests Mr and Mrs Fleeg deflected and transfered into money.

18
Q

Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Boland

A

Boland (the trustee) the husband mortagaged the house without the beneficiary’s (the wife) knowledge. Because Mrs Boland was in actual possession, her beneficial interest was binding on the bank despite not being entered on the register. The difference is that in Flegg there were two trustees.