Differences between Joint Tenants and Tenants in Common in Law and in Equity Flashcards
(14 cards)
What is the maximum number of trustees for a legal title in land?
A. Four trustees, all sui juris
B. Two trustees, both sui juris
C. Three trustees, at least one sui juris
D. No statutory limit on number of trustees
A. Four trustees, all sui juris
Explanation: A trust of land must have no more than four legal trustees, each of full legal capacity
Which of the following is not one of the four unities required for an equitable joint tenancy?
A. Possession
B. Contribution
C. Title
D. Time
B. Contribution
Explanation: The four unities are possession, interest, title and time; contribution is irrelevant to a joint tenancy
At law, the legal title to registered land is always held as a:
A. Tenancy in common among trustees
B. Sole legal estate by a single trustee
C. Joint tenancy among trustees
D. Trust corporation only
C. Joint tenancy among trustees
Explanation: Legal title can only be held as a joint tenancy (LPA 1925, s 36(2))
Equity presumes a tenancy in common rather than a joint tenancy when co-owners are:
A. Family members contributing equally
B. Married couples purchasing a home
C. Trustees under an express declaration
D. Commercial parties contributing unequal funds
D. Commercial parties contributing unequal funds
Explanation: In a commercial context, equity presumes a tenancy in common in shares proportionate to contribution
Alice pays 80 % of the purchase price, Bob 20 %, but title is taken in both names without declaration. Their equitable interests are:
A. Alice 80 % and Bob 20 % as tenants in common
B. Equal shares as joint tenants
C. Alice 100 % and Bob 0 % under resulting trust
D. Bob 80 % and Alice 20 % reversed
A. Alice 80 % and Bob 20 % as tenants in common
Explanation: A resulting trust arises on contribution alone, creating TIC shares proportionate to purchase money
Charley and Dana execute an express declaration of trust in writing specifying “equal beneficial shares.” Absent four unities, their interest is:
A. Tenancy in common by statute
B. Joint tenancy in equity by express words
C. Void for uncertainty
D. Severed by resulting trust
B. Joint tenancy in equity by express words
Explanation: A compliant s 53(1)(b) declaration in writing can override unities and impose a JT if so stated
Emma provides all purchase funds but the title is taken in Frank’s name alone. Equity will impose:
A. A joint tenancy in Frank’s sole name
B. A resulting trust in Emma’s favour as JT
C. A resulting trust creating a TIC for Emma’s beneficial share
D. No trust—Emma loses contribution
C. A resulting trust creating a TIC for Emma’s beneficial share
Explanation: When purchase money is advanced but title taken in another’s name, a resulting trust grants the contributor a TIC interest proportional to their outlay
Gina and Hal buy land as business partners; Gina contributes 70 %, Hal 30 %. No declaration is made. Their default equitable interest is:
A. JT (equal shares)
B. JT (reflecting partnership status)
C. TIC in proportions 70 : 30
D. TIC in equal shares
D. TIC in equal shares
Explanation: In a commercial/business context, equity presumes a TIC reflecting contribution—but where no express shares, default is equal unless resulting trust applied
Ian and Jane hold as equitable joint tenants. Jane dies unexpectedly. Which statement is correct?
A. Ian automatically becomes sole beneficial owner (survivorship).
B. Jane’s share passes under her will to her heirs.
C. Ian and Jane’s estate converts to a TIC automatically.
D. Legal title splits into two equal shares.
A. Ian automatically becomes sole beneficial owner (survivorship).
Explanation: Right of survivorship in equity vests the whole interest in the survivor immediately on death
Kyle and Lucy’s land is held at law by trustees A & B as JTs. A becomes bankrupt. The equitable title then:
A. Remains a JT between Kyle and Lucy
B. Becomes a JT among Kyle, Lucy and A’s trustee
C. Becomes a TIC between Kyle and Lucy only
D. Terminates the trust entirely
B. Becomes a JT among Kyle, Lucy and A’s trustee
Explanation: Bankruptcy of a JT severs their equitable share, creating a TIC between that trustee and remaining JTs, but legal title remains joint until death
Matt and Nora expressly declare in writing they hold “as tenants in common in equal shares,” but their conveyance document omits the word “equal.” The equitable interest is:
A. JT by default
B. Invalid declaration—no trust
C. TIC in proportions of contribution
D. TIC in equal shares by construction
C. TIC in proportions of contribution
Explanation: A flawed declaration of express trust falls back on the presumption for a resulting trust—TIC in proportion to contributions
Omar and Priya own land at law as JTs; they never discuss beneficial shares. Omar contributes 90 %, Priya 10 %, in a family business purchase. Equity will assume:
A. JT regardless of contribution
B. TIC because no express words
C. JT reflecting family context
D. TIC proportional to contributions
D. TIC proportional to contributions
Explanation: In commercial or joint venture contexts, equity presumes TIC interests proportional to contributions
“Curtain Principle” in registered land means that:
A. Beneficial interests under trusts lie behind the register and need not be investigated by purchasers
B. All equitable interests must be entered on the Charges Register
C. Trust documents are publicly available
D. Purchasers must lift the “curtain” by inspecting title deeds
A. Beneficial interests under trusts lie behind the register and need not be investigated by purchasers
Explanation: Under the Curtain Principle, purchasers of registered land rely solely on the register for legal title; equitable trust details remain private
Under LPA 1925, s 36(2), a legal joint tenancy:
A. May only be severed by mutual deed of trust
B. Cannot be severed at law under any circumstances
C. Converts automatically into a tenancy in common after five years
D. Requires notice to the Land Registry for severance
B. Cannot be severed at law under any circumstances
Explanation: Section 36(2) confirms that legal joint tenancies are indivisible at law—only their equitable counterparts can be severed
