Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Land Law > CO-OWNERSHIP > Flashcards

CO-OWNERSHIP Flashcards

(75 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Co-owernship introduction

A

co-owned property is where 2 or more people own the same estate in the same piece of land concurrently, and is held by way of a trust

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

Freehold formalities

A

s1(1) LPA 1925, by deed - s52(1) LPA 1925, requirements for a deed - s1 LP(MP)(A) 1989, registered - re.g land s27 LRA 2002, unregistered land - s4 LRA 2002

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

s34 Trustees Act 1925

A

no more than a max. of 4 legal owners of any property

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

s34 LPA 1925

A

legal owners will be the first 4 people named in the conveyance, regardless of how many more people are named in the document

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

s1(6) LPA 1925

A

no person under the age of 18 can hold LT, and LT will be held as a JT as this is the only way of holding it

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

s1, 4 and 6 TLATA

A

statutory trust will be imposed where eland owners by 2+ people, LT held as JT

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

Pink v Lawrence

A

If 4 unities are present, an express declaration is conclusive of an equitable joint tenancy - which will be held in equal shares

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

Stack v Dowden

A

alternatively, presumption of equal ET as JT if they’re JT of LT

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

AG Securities v Vaughan

A

4 unities - all entitled to possession of the whole of the property, have the same interest in the property with respect to nature and duration, derive their title from the same act of purchase and their interests start at the same time

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

Bull v Bull

A

If unequal contribution, presumptions of TIC in unequal shares

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

Jones v Kernott

A

Bull doesn’t apply in domestic cases, unless intention of TIC shown by all parties in their whole course of conduct

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

Sole legal owner + no express declaration

A

= TIC

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

Lake v Craddock

A

If property bought as commercial investment

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

Payne v Webb

A

‘in equal shares’

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

Heathe v Heathe

A

‘share and share alike’

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

Fisher v Wigg

A

to be divided between

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

Re Kilvert

A

equally

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

If 4 unities not present, but there is unity of possession

A

= TIC (AG Securities v Vaughan)

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

s36(2) LPA

A

defines severance by ‘express written notice or other acts or things (Williams v Hensman)

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

Re Draper’s

A

need not be signed by the severer (wife’s divorce petition asked for immediate sale of house and immediate division of proceeds of sale)

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

Re Caines

A

must be inter-vivos

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Harris v Goddard

A

no severance found - showed intention as to future, petition of divorce was vague

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Quigley v Masterson

A

severance affected - woman’s application in the Court of protection proceedings during man’s lifetime qualified s written notice. Made it clear that she treated his share as 50p and wanted a valuation for house

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

s196(4) LPA 1925

A

it is sent by registered post and not returned to Post Office - assume that it has been delivered and no need to move it arrived

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
s196(3) LPA 1925
if normal post used then would need to prove that notice arrived
26
Kinch v Bullard
SEVERANCE YES - terminally ill wife posted written notice in letter box. Husband never seen it
27
Re 88 Berkeley Road
SEVERANCE - YES - the other woman knew nothing about it until after first woman's death. Recorded delivery to property and signed for it herself
28
Ahmed v Kendrick
S - YES - husband sold jointly owned house by forging wife's signature
29
Penn v Bristol
NO S- bc. of fraud
30
First National Securities v Hegarty
mortgaged operating on his own share
31
Re Gorman
bankruptcy - involuntary alienation
32
Gore & Snell v Carpenter
NO S - No final agreement, only preliminary, and not a course of conduct. Overall separation not finalised or signed - could be revised
33
Nielson-Jones v Fedden
NO S - Memo was not a notice, only authorised husband to sell on behalf of both parties, only distributed a portion of total1k deposit not all of it - MUST BE IRREVOCABLE
34
Greenfield v Greenfield
NO S - despite property being physically divided
35
Burgess v Rawnsley
YES S - oral agreement, negotiations had gone as far as discussing the price
36
Hunter v Babbage
YES S - agreed house would be split unequally, draft order of consent for sale
37
Davies v Smith
YES S - mere agreement to put jointly owned property on market NOT ENOUGH - but they agreed that sale proceeds would be divided between them, both had legal advice, had agreed that proceeds divided in balanced way. FOCUS on words/conduct between both parties NOT what was on their minds
38
Carr v Isard
NO S - mum and dad each exceeded a will - but difference in wills
39
RE Woolnough
YES S - same will, clear instructions
40
s7(3) TLATA
trustees have power to physical partition land with consent of Bs
41
Wright v Gibbons
JT can acquire TIC's interest by will and have dual status
42
s6 TLATA
trustees have power to sell the land
43
s11 TLATA
T have duty to consult all beneficial owners of full and age and give effect to the wishes of the majority (by value) so far as is consistent with the general interest of the trust
44
s10 TLATA
if the trust deed requires the consent of 2+ people to the sale - the consent of 2 is enough
45
s12 TLATA
Bs have the right to occupy the property
46
s13 TLATA
T can apply to exclude Bs from occupying - occupation rent
47
s15(1)(A) intersts of people who created the trust ,Barclays Bank v Taylor
must consider intentions of the parties who created the trust if formal express trust
48
Re Buchanan-Wollaston
sea view home
49
Re Ever's
husband left family home but wife and kids still hthere - purpose of family home existed until kids of school leaving age 16. Husband did not need money and could live elsewhere
50
Jones v Challenger
couple divorced - continuing purpose of family home - NO even if one still wanted
51
s15(1)(c) TLATA
the welfare of minors in occupation
52
s15(1)(D) TLATA,
the interests of secured creditors
53
Mortgage Corp v Shaire
pre-TLATA cases treated with cation as old cases favoured creditors and Neuerberg said they shouldn't - continuing purpose should be looked at
54
Bank of Ireland v Bell
interests of creditors paramount over the family home
55
First National v Achampong
bank not to be kept out even though wife, kids (1 disabled) and grandkids lived there
56
Fred Perry v Genis
commercial interests to take precedence over family interests
57
Putnam v Taylor
voice of creditors prevail regardless of homelessness
58
Dennis v McDonald
cohabiting couple bought house as TICs. Had 5 kids, man was violent so woman left with 2 younger kids, man continued to live there with other 3 kids. CA refused order for sale - ordered man to pay occupation rent to woman which was half a fair rent for the property
59
Ali v Hussein
co-owner wanted land sold to get back investment. Court postponed sale for some months to let other co-owners buy out the co-owner who wanted to leave
60
Re Gorman - bankruptcy
husband went bankrupt, his TIB was entitled to left of the value
61
s306(1) IA 1986
bankrupt's share of joint ET will vest automatically in the TIB to deal with as TIC
62
s305(2) IA 86
TIB must realise and distribute the bankrupt's assets to their creditors within 3y of the bankruptcy (Enterprise Act 02'). This entails applying for a sale of the property under s14 TLATA to realise its value in cash
63
s283(3) IA 86
Bankrupt's LT is unaffected
64
s15(4) TLATA
court will have regard to the factors in s33(5)(A) IA: interest of the bankrupt's creditors, the conduct, needs and resources of the spouse or civil partner of the bankrupt, the needs of any children, all the circumstances except for the needs of the bankrupt - Everitt v Budhram
65
Everett v Budhram
exceptional circs. does not include the needs of the bankrupt
66
Re Citro
NOT EXCEP. - for wife and children to be homeless or children's education to be affected - 2 bros went bankrupt, - NORMAL Circumstances -'melancholy consequences of debt and improvidence'
67
Re Holiday
EXCEPTIONAL - husband deliberately made himself bankrupt & creditors didn't need their money that badly as were large commercial and their money was proceed in the value of the house. Wife's voice allowed to prevail sale not ordered
68
Re Mott
Exceptional- serious mental or physical illness of wife - wife was elderly and unwell and had lived in house for 40year, son had co-owned and went bankrupt, sale postponed until she died
69
Re Raval
Exceptional - serious mental illness of wife - wife was a paranoid, schizophrenic, short postpomenet
70
Claughton v Charalmbous
Exceptional- wife had renal failure, and severe arthritis (terminal). Sale was postponed
71
Re Haghighat
Exceptional - spouse's child seriously disabled with cerebral palsy, required continuous care, sale postponed for 3y
72
Nicholls v Lan
Exceptional - spouse had chronic long-term schizophrenia, order postponed for 18m
73
Re Bremmer
Exceptional - bankrupt was terminally ill with cancer, had 6m to live. Courts hung postponement on spouse and said spouse had to be there to care for the bankrupt - sale postponed for 3m after bankrupt died
74
Barca v Mears
disruption of child's educational - NOT EXCEPTIONAL. despite special needs.
75
Donohoe v Ingram
Not exceptional - 4 young's children's education would have been disrupted, judge said may be room for more generous interpret ion but not here

Land Law (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions