Trust of Land Flashcards
(8 cards)
1
Q
Mortgage Corporation v Shaire [2001]
- facts
A
- Mr Fox and Mrs Shaire lived together as husband and wife - had beneficial interest
- mortgage executed by both BUT S’s signature was forged
- Mortgage Corp applied for order for possession & sale
- Neuberger says that courts have greater flexibility to exercise its jurisdiction for an order for sale -> need to take into account certain factors (see s.15(1) & (3))
- held that S leaving her home of nearly 25 years wouldn’t be an enormous hardship (just significant) - she is able to buy a smaller house - BUT if S can pay the proper return, it would be right to refuse an order for possession because S has a valid interest in remaining in the house
- TLATA 1996 Act has the effect of rendering the trusts for sale obsolete […] and replacing them with the less arcane and simpler trusts of land
2
Q
Williams and Glyn’s Bank v Boland [1981]
A
- highlights that static security (interests under a trust) take priority in cases where there is actual occupation and the interests are discoverable
3
Q
City of London BS v Flegg [1988]
A
- dynamic security (lender) takes priority when overreaching applies, because it trumps overriding interests
4
Q
Chan Pui Chun v Leung Kam Ho [2002]
A
- restriction to the right to occupy depends on suitability of land for occupants, including consideration of ‘personal characteristics, cirucmstances and requirements of the particular beneficiary
5
Q
Re Mayo
A
- pre-TLATA court should always order sale unless trustees unanimously exercise power to postpone
6
Q
White v White [2003]
A
- judges do “as they think fit”
- to establish how to settle a dispute between co-owners
- post-TLATA
7
Q
Re Citro
A
- rule pre-TLATA on disputes between co-owners and secured creditors applied -> sale is always ordered unless exceptional circumstances occur
- defines exceptional circumstances
8
Q
Lloyds Bank v Byrne
A
- Re Citro applied via this case
