This problem involves a co-ownership of Edible Estates (EE): Apple Manor (AM), Blackberry Lodge (BL) and Mushroom Cottage (MC) between three co-owners Teresa (T) and her daughters Benedetta (B) and Jacopina (J). A third-party, Graham (G) rents MC and cultivates a Mushroom Patch (MP) on EE from which he makes a living.
T and J have joint legal title and equitable interest in sale proceeds for BL. J and B have joint legal title and equitable interest in G’s rent payments and sale proceeds for MC. T contributed to the purchase price therefore equitable interest. B has sole legal title to AM. Again, T contributed to the purchase price so also equitable interest.
a) Teresa v Graham
A vital deduction is made here. The three residences are at the foot of the estate, BL and MC have small garden …show more content…
If this were the case, Mrs Boland would not have been in AO at the time of the disposition. However, it is not for either Mrs Boland or T, therefore can claim an OI based on AO.
MC
Since T is a beneficiary and does not hold legal title to MC, she may have a claim OI as per Boland. Lord Wilberforce decided in CBS v Flegg that where there is a disposition by two trustees, overreaching will take place. In this case, Boland does not operate for B and J because they are both trustees, however, does for T since she is a beneficiary. Boland only works for someone who is a beneficiary, but not a trustee.
BL
As T knew about the mortgage for BL, then YMM may be able to claim a defence on the basis that T had implicitly consented to the mortgage. Lord Oliver also explained that occupation requires ‘some degree of permanence and continuity which would rule out mere fleeting presence.’ T was no in AO of BL at the time she agreed to the mortgage and therefore cannot claim AO as an OI. In this case, YMM has priority over T’s interests and can
T and J have joint legal title and equitable interest in sale proceeds for BL. J and B have joint legal title and equitable interest in G’s rent payments and sale proceeds for MC. T contributed to the purchase price therefore equitable interest. B has sole legal title to AM. Again, T contributed to the purchase price so also equitable interest.
a) Teresa v Graham
A vital deduction is made here. The three residences are at the foot of the estate, BL and MC have small garden …show more content…
If this were the case, Mrs Boland would not have been in AO at the time of the disposition. However, it is not for either Mrs Boland or T, therefore can claim an OI based on AO.
MC
Since T is a beneficiary and does not hold legal title to MC, she may have a claim OI as per Boland. Lord Wilberforce decided in CBS v Flegg that where there is a disposition by two trustees, overreaching will take place. In this case, Boland does not operate for B and J because they are both trustees, however, does for T since she is a beneficiary. Boland only works for someone who is a beneficiary, but not a trustee.
BL
As T knew about the mortgage for BL, then YMM may be able to claim a defence on the basis that T had implicitly consented to the mortgage. Lord Oliver also explained that occupation requires ‘some degree of permanence and continuity which would rule out mere fleeting presence.’ T was no in AO of BL at the time she agreed to the mortgage and therefore cannot claim AO as an OI. In this case, YMM has priority over T’s interests and can