Co - Ownership

Front 1

Creation of co ownership

Back 1

Formal Express Agreement
Modern problem of co-ownership - informal creation of rights in the home

Front 2

Co owners

Back 2

Can be joint tenants or tenants in common only joint tenancy can exist at law but JT and tenancy in common can exist in equity. In addition to express trusts equitable/beneficial interest may occur through the application of resulting, constructive trusts or proprietary estoppel.

Front 3

Resulting Trust

Back 3

Contributes to the purchase price but does not have their name on the legal title. Presumption that the contributor has a beneficial interest in the land behind a trust.

Front 4

Constructive Trust

Back 4

A person has contributed directly or indirectly, to the value of the land and common intention or express agreement between the parties that there should be a share in its ownership. Common intention can be proved, in addition to excuse or lie from the legal owner as to why land not in joint names

Front 5

Eves v Eves (1975) 1 WLR 1338 Janet and Stuart Eves purchased a house in which it was intended both should live. The house was conveyed into Stuart Eve's name and he provided the entirety of the purchase money. However, he told Janet Eves that if she had been 21 years of age he would have put the house into their joint names, as it was to be their joint home, but that as she was under 21 it would have to be put into his name alone.

She believed him, but he later admitted that this was an excuse and that he never intended her to have a share. Not withstanding this she did a lot of heavy work in reliance on the statement to improve the state of the house. Stuart Eves also helped her with the improvements.

On the breakdown of the relationship four and a half years later, the question arose as to whether Janet had a share in the house, and if so, in what proportions.

Back 5

Held: The defendant Stuart Eves held the legal estate on trust for sale for himself and Janet, in the proportions of one-quarter to Janet and three-quarters to himself. The decision depended on the excuse made by Stuart Eves, and relied upon by Janet.

Front 6

Grant v Edwards In 1967 the plaintiff, who was separated from her husband, started cohabiting with the defendant. In 1969 the defendant bought a house which he occupied with the plaintiff, their two children and the two children of the plaintiff's marriage. The defendant told the plaintiff that her name was not included in the title to the house because it would prejudice her in the matrimonial proceedings against her husband. The defendant paid the deposit and mortgage repayments while the plaintiff made substantial contributions towards general household expenses. The parties stopped cohabiting in 1980 and the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest in the house. The judge dismissed the claim.
The plaintiff appealed.

Back 6

Nourse LJ said that the excuse given by the defendant for not putting the plaintiff's name on the title raised a clear inference of a common intention that the plaintiff was to have a proprietary interest in the house: see Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338. The plaintiff's contributions towards the housekeeping enabled the defendant to pay the mortgage installments. The plaintiff had therefore acted to her detriment on the faith of the common intention by making substantial indirect contributions towards the mortgage repayments. That was conduct upon which she could not reasonably have been expected to embark unless she was to have an interest in the property. She was entitled to a half interest in the house.

Front 7

Distinguish between joint tenancy and tenants in common

Back 7

Joint tenancy all owners are entitled to the entire property none has a 'share', on death of joint tenant the interest passes to other joint tenants.
Tenants in common each owner has a share which they can sell, transfer etc.

Front 8

Joint tenants or tenants in common?

Back 8

1st are 'The four unities' present? - title, title,interest, and possession?; 2nd are there any words of severance in the grant indicating that the tenants were tenants in common(equal shares to x and y?) ; 3rd is the situation one where equity presumes a tenancy in common. (Tenancy in common only needs unity of possession to be shown)

Front 9

Dunbar (deceased) v Plant [1997] CA (Civil Division)
D and her fiancé, resolved to commit suicide together. They agreed to hang themselves by jumping from a ladder at the same time. D survived. She was not prosecuted for any offence.
The fiancé's father sought to determine D’s entitlement to the house which they had jointly owned and to the proceeds of an insurance policy written for her benefit.
The forfeiture rule (the rule of public policy which precluded a person who had unlawfully killed another from gaining a benefit in consequence of the killing) applied to prevent D from succeeding to the deceased’s interest in the house and from entitlement to the insurance money.

Back 9

Held: D had aided and abetted suicide therefore the forfeiture rule applied, but in trying to do justice between the parties, and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the fact that in the case of the survivor of a suicide pact the public interest would not normally call for forfeiture, the court would order that there should be full relief against the effect of the forfeiture rule.