Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/44

Click to flip

44 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Joint Tenancy
-co-owners hold the property as one single owner.
-Each owner has the potential to claim a separate share in equity only
-there is a right of survivorship
AG Securities v Vaughan
Joint tenancy requires 4 unities
-time
-title
-interest
-possession
Tenants in common
co owners hold a distinct individual share that often reflects initial contributions.
-requires only unity of possession
ss34,30 LPA 1925
pre 1997 a trust of sale was imposed on co owners
TOLATA 1996
post 1996 trusts of land are now imposed on co-owners
s34 TA 1925
the first four names on the legal conveyance are the legal owners
s11(1) TOLATA
t's have a duty to consult all B's before exercising functions as trustees
s1(6) LPA 1925
legal title can only be held as Joint Tenants
Pink v Lawrence
where all four unities are present, an express declaration as to how the equitable title will be held will prevail
Re Pavlou
a Pink v Lawrence declaration will be conclusive as to the size of the interests held

bankruptcy will sever a joint tenancy

where a co owner is declared bankrupt, his beneficial interest will rest in the trustee in bankruptcy
Cowcher
if there is no declaration, equity will follow the law and assume it is a joint tenancy-must be four unities
Payne v Webb
words of severance such as 'in equal shares' will rebut that presumption
Bull v Bull
unequal contributions to the purchase price may amount to a rebuttal of JT
Lake v Craddock
land purchased for a commercial enterprise will rebut the presumption
Re Fullers
right of survivorship is inappropriate in a commercial enterprise
Martin v Martin
where contradictions exist, it will likely be a tenancy in common
Re Carnes
severance must take place inter vivos
Williams v Hensman
JT can be severed by written notice, act operating on your share, mutual agreement, mutual conduct and homicide
Re Drapers
written notice need not be signed nor state that it is a s36 severance
Harris v Goddard
notice must convey an unequivocal and irrevocable intention to sever his interest
Nielsen Jones
notice must be served on all other Joint Tenants

a mere agreement to sell the property is ineffective as severance
s196(4) LPA 1925
severance by registered post will be effective
Kinch v Bullard
where he uses normal post he would have to prove that the notice actually arrived
Re 88 Berkley Road
severance need not be read to be effective
Brown v Raindle
total alienation-severing tenant sells or disposes of his beneficial interest-must comply with s53(1)(c) LPA 1925
Hegarty
partial alienation is where the severing tenant mortgages or leases his beneficial interest
Wright v Gibbons
severance by mutual agreement must be between all beneficial interests, can be oral or in writing
Burgess
severance need not be in a specifically enforceable contract

solid negotiations between joint tenants in relation to each other shares in the property may sever the agreement
Gore & Snell
mutual agreement must be fixed and non changing
Mcdonald
common intention to sever can be implied
Greenfield
co owned property was severed by mutual conduct-physically partitioning the property
Re Wilford Estate
execution of mutual wills directing where each JT's share should go will effect severance
Cleaver
t1 murdering t2 will sever the JT
Pre TOLATA trusts for sale co owners in dispute
s30 LPA 1925-courts were predisposed in favour of a sale
S14 TOLATA
a party can make a request to settle disputes, using s15 criteria
Achampang
s15 is non exhaustive, court can bear in mind other factors
Re Buchanans Wollastons
where the purpose for which property was purchased can still be fulfilled the court may be inclined not to order a sale
Challenger
a home for the couple-purpose is dead upon breaking down of the relationship, court may order a sale
Re Evers
Challenger is not applicable where there are minors to sustain/protect
Trusts of land
T's have a power, not a duty to sell
Jackson
court can order a sale
Ali
court can order a sale but postpone it
Mayes
court can refuse an order of sale
Dennis
court can refuse a sale but order occupying co owner to pay rent to a non occupier