Co-ownership Flashcards
(29 cards)
What are the four unities
PITT: Possession; interest; time; title.
Beaumont v Kinsella (1859)
Unity of possession: A co-owner who evicts another co-owner is
liable in trespass.
Hammersmith and Fulham v Monks
(H Lords) If one JT gives notice to quit to the landlord, the tenancy of both JTs is terminated, even though in that case it caused the other tenant to become homeless.
Georgia v Randolph
The State Supreme Court held that consent given by one occupant is not valid in the face of the refusal of another physically present occupant.
s.31 LRCRA 2009
Allows a co-owner at law or in equity to apply to the court for “accounting adjustments” to be made between the co-owners when the other co-owner is taking a disproportionate share of rent.
O’Hea v Slattery
- Unity of time was not required.
- An unusual settlement in which the settlor held a joint tenancy with his wife, the children of his previous marriage and of his current marriage, so that later-born children could take interests when they were born, divesting existing JTs of their interests to the necessary extent.
Define a TiC
Situation in which two or more people have a separate share in the same interest at the same time.
S.32 LCLRA
Conveyance to a corporation is presumed to create a TiC.
Lahiffe v Hecker
- Testator gave a property in JT to his three daughters and his son, subject to a right of residence for one of the daughters “until she marries”.
- That daughter was not entitled to exclude the other JTs, but she could choose one of the 3 bedrooms for exclusive use, and was entitled to an extra portion in the proceeds from the sale of the house
Martin v Martin
Contradictory words will be construed as creating either interest depending on the circumstances.
Lake v Gibson (1729)
The presumption inequity is that A did not intend to make a gift to B and so they hold the JT in trust for themselves as TiC in proportion to the amounts contributed.
O’Malley v Breen
Series of property transactions and a series of wives across Dundalk and Donegal. CB 2 kids with 1st wife KB and 3 with 2nd. Divorced 1st wife and remarried justs before his death. Investment property in Dundalk had been purchased with 30k deposit of CB’s money. Did that create a resulting trust of 30k in favour of his estate, or did KB own the house in its entirety?
Issue: who owns the investment property in Dundalk?
Held: Haughton J, overturning O’Connor J in the IEHC. CB’s decision to fund the purchase of the property was explicable by a desire to provide for the children of his relationship with K. Was also in lieu of a maintenance agreement. Presumption of advancement from husband to wife not relied upon – they had already separated when it was purchased.
O’Connell v Harrison
- Evidence to rebut the presumption of a joint tenancy between two sisters. Survivorship would’ve operated as one died two years before the other.
Evidence was that the held shares and their father’s business as TiC.
Bull v Bull
- Son and mother. Son paid more and held the house in single title. New wife fall out.
- Lord Denning: mother still entitled to possession. Her share wasn’t meant as a gift.
Twigg v Twigg
- Testator directed trustees to sell the rest of his estate and hold the money on trust for his nephews and nieces.
- Strongly recommended that they expend the money on the education of their children.
- Not all of them had children: should they all have to contribute to a joint fund for the education of the children?
- Held: No. They held the money as TiC in equity.
L’Estrange v L’Estrange
- Father devised the residue of his estate to trustees in favour of his six children for their education and advancement in life.
- Ashbourne LC: the children had different needs and so it was intended that they should take separate interests—they were held to be TiC of the residue.
Case which shows the presumption of advancement for a parent and a child
Scroope v Scroope (1663)
3 methods of severance at CL
(i) Subsequent acquisition of an additional interest in the land.
(ii) Alienation by one Joint Tenant
(iii) Unilateral dealing (no longer possible)
LCLRA 2009 s.30
No longer possible to sever by unilateral dealing.
Cannot be severed by a unilateral act of one of the joint tenants–void ab initio. Must now be severed by mutual agreement.
S.30(4) LCLRA 2009
Preserves severance at equity.
Williams v Hensman
(Page Wood VC)
Severance at equity achieved by:
(i) a unilateral act of a JT upon their own share,
(ii) mutual agreement,
(iii) ‘any course of dealing sufficient to intimate that the interests of all were’ to create a TiC.
Burgess v Rawnsley
Unrequited love story.
Hastings proposes and Rawnsley says no. They shared a JT.
The Q arises: what will they do about their living arrangement? He proposes that he will buy her out. They discuss and he does not offer enough. Eventually all took of a sale ceases—it is never executed.
Held: An agreement between the parties by which one agreed to convey an interest in the property to another need not be enforceable as a contract in order to sever the JT in equity.
Severance at CL
(i) Consent/mutual agreement
(ii) Conveyance/transaction which destroys one of the unities.
Gore v Carpenter
Best understanding of B v R today is probably that the JT is severed when there is evidence that the relations between the parties have changed from one where both would be happy for survivorship to operate to one in which that is no longer the case.
