Co-ownership on Family Home
Land law can be rigid sometimes and show an unkind hand to those deserving but are lacking in legal formality. This scenario is particularly an issue in marital breakdown cases, especially where only one spouse possesses the legal title1. Where trust deems unfounded; ingested with bitterness and emotional turmoil, having to fulfil many strict requirements can leave deserving parties sometimes losing much more than a relationship. Nevertheless, the law tries to protect the weaker party in equity but this is no easy task. Even more difficult for partners that are not legally married2 as seen in Burns v Burns3 or those defined under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, whom are not protected by any statutory provisions. Where only one party has the legal title, the other party has to establish his/her equitable interest in the land which is usually not already recorded on the land register or deed. If established, the interest is overriding by virtue of the Land Purchase Acts and the Land Registration Acts. This is usually done via the vehicles of equitable trusts, along with proprietary estoppel. Hence, if the non-legal owner establishes his/her equitable interest, the property is co-owned in equity and this is binding upon the legal owner in relation to the division of rights to and in the family home4 in lieu of relationship breakdown5. Problems will not arise if there is an
Land Law
LAND LAW COURSEWORK Prepared By; CHRISTINA BOODOOSINGH YEAR: 2009/2010 "A central problem addressed in the 1925 Property legislation was how to cope with the fragmentation of benefit created by the widespread use of trusts in relation to land. Discuss, How has subsequent legislation sought to deal with this enduring problem? To what extent has it been successful? " CONTENTS S.No Description Page No. Introduction 3 2 Foundation and Aims of 1925 Legislation 4 3 Analysing LPA 1925 5 4 Extent of Successfulness of LRA 1925 6 5 Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and Settled Land Act 1925 8 6 Conclusion 1 7 Bibliography 2 INTRODUCTION The aims of English property law was extensively restructured in 1925 due to its complexities and irregularities, this has been carefully and precisely summarised by Lord Upjohn1:": "it has been the policy of the law for over a hundred years to simplify and facilitate transactions in real property. One of the most notable changes brought in by the 1925 legislation was the expansion of the registered land system. The need for a comprehensive register of title to land remained the primary ambition of law reformers for a long time. This was evident in the 1857 Royal Commission2 that aimed for the land owners "to deal with land in as simple and easy a manner, as far as title is concerned...". The realisation of
Interpretation and Cases on Village Greens: Commons Registration Act 1965
'Sunningwell started the debate and the Trap Grounds finished it'. Review the case law underlying this contentious statement. Notes Regarding Property Outline: In following the suggestions provided to me by my seminar leader, I have searched out quotes regarding the changing face of village greens to add value to my essay. Outside of this remark I have not changed any of my intentions with the format of this essay as the outline suggests this. This essay will focus on cases, particularly Sunningwell, Beresford, and Oxfordshire (both the Court of Appeal and House of Lords decisions), that have dealt with the interpretation and application of various legislation involving type 'c' village greens, with particular emphasis on the Commons Act 1965. With reference to the title statement, I comply that the 'debate' that is suggested in this heading involves much more than simply those cases mentioned within it, and to suggest that the 'debate' could have occurred so succinctly would be ill-considered and quite circumscribed. I intend to support this claim by analysing the 1965 legislation as well as the ensuing amendments to it and relevant case law. I believe that the 'debate' mentioned in the title statement involves the interpretation of the Commons Registration Act 1965 legislation, specifically regarding type 'c' village greens and their definition. However, I contend that
The freehold estates
The freehold estates <op>1.18 The rich taxonomy of estates in medieval land law provided for a number of freehold estates which together facilitated the fragmentation of ownership and conferred enormous flexibility in the management of landed wealth. The substitution of abstract estates in land as the object of proprietary rights enabled grantors to preside over almost endless disaggregations of title through the conferment of successive freehold estates (eg where X granted Greenacre to A for life, then to B in tail, and finally to C in fee simple). Each successive interest could enjoy an immediate jural reality as of the date of the original grant; and each was freely commerciable (ie mortgageable) long before the estate in question actually fell into possession (4.4). The freehold estates, in their most basic form, comprised the following: <sp>- The estate in fee simple denoted (and still denotes) tenure of potentially unlimited duration, the amplest estate which a tenant can have in or over land. The fee simple confers 'the widest powers of enjoyment in respect of all the advantages to be derived from the land itself and from anything found on it' (Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) per Gummow J), and constitutes effectively the 'local equivalent of full ownership' (ibid, per Kirby J). The tenant of an unencumbered estate in fee simple has, without question, the largest
Leasehold problem case. In 2005 Miranda sublet the premises for a term of 7 years to Albert, with Jons consent. In 2008 Miranda assigned the lease to Dave, without obtaining Jons consent. In 2009, unknown to Jon, Albert moved away and his
Introduction Study of land law provides many benefits, as in any other legal subject, from a disciplined approach and logical analysis, and as usual you also need to develop the skill of thinking and arguing conceptually. However, land law is full of categories and sub-categories: a successful answer to any problem question will depend upon accurate, comprehensive and logical analysis of how the facts of the question fit into those categories. Thus, for example, there are two categories of land known as registered title and unregistered title, and the body of rules applying to each is fundamentally different; when answering a problem question you must determine which category is relevant, then apply the corresponding body of rules. Failure to do so can sometimes lead to a totally wrong answer. Again, we will often look at legal rights and equitable rights separately, since law and equity have very different approaches to the enforceability of rights in relation to land. Accurate labelling of rights and situations, with a calm approach, will make the application of the correct line of authorities reasonably straightforward. Land law is about the relationships which people and the state have with land. Nobody can live without land, and most people have to share it, creating competing rights. England and Wales have a limited supply of land and (at least in towns and cities) a
Proprietary Estoppel - Asserting a right or preventing a fact? It will be submitted in this essay that the term estoppel is not misleading. Further, that proprietary estoppel can conform to its definition yet still have the ability to oper
To convey proprietary rights in land, certain formalities have to be satisfied1, although in many informal situations they are often not, as people don't go to lawyers and without lawyers they don't know about the formality requirements. The doctrine of proprietary estoppel, cited in principle as far back as 16492, is an equitable doctrine where the law ignores the formality requirements because of the detrimental reliance that has been incurred. Thus, to define proprietary estoppel as the 'antidote to unfair resilience on formality rules'3 would seem fitting. Despite its age, however, the doctrine is still regarded as unclear4. Sir Terence Ethan claims that the attractiveness of proprietary estoppel 'is not undermined, but rather is enhanced' by the wide discretion of the court as to the choice of actual remedy5. But it is this discretion which provokes inquisitiveness as to the accuracy of the word 'estoppel', that is, if the courts are doing more than merely estopping. It will be submitted in this essay that the term 'estoppel' is not misleading. Further, that proprietary estoppel can conform to its definition yet still have the ability to operate independently to impose a duty on A to B, rather than just preventing A from asserting a fact or right against B. This will be achieved through firstly focusing on the term 'estoppel' in light of its other forms such as
Registered land principles
Buyers, Sellers and Third Parties: Answering a Question on Registered Land Principles The question requires us to consider (1) what interest or interests, if any, Axel has in F's & G's freehold estate and (2) if he does have an interest, whether he can enforce it against F&G. 2 Axel claims to have a five-year lease which will expire in four and a quarter years (2014). This cannot be a legal lease as the question states that the document which created it is a contract and not a deed (it complies with LP(MP)A 1989 s.2 but not with s.1). In order to create or transfer a legal estate or legal interest in land a deed is always required; LPA 1925 s.52(1)) subject to s.52(2)(d). The exception is a legal lease granted for three years or less, provided it starts immediately, is at a proper market rent and is for rent only, not for a premium. These short legal leases can be created without any formalities at all; LPA 1925 s.54(2).). 3 Axel appears to have a contract for a lease. If that is the case then he is likely to have an equitable five-year lease since, unless he is in breach of any of the tenant covenants in the lease, specific performance of the contract will be available; Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 ChD 9. 4 Since Axel went into possession and presumably began paying rent at the beginning of March, then he may also be able to claim that he has an implied periodic
Adise on principles of Land Law
Advise Horace on the appropriate principles of property law in these two situations: . Horace has bought Hillview House (HH), because he likes the southerly views. The land to the south was sold by Horace's predecessor in title, Bertie, to Peregrine, a property developer. Peregrine proposes to build a six storey development of executive apartments, Pilemhi (P). Horace has told Peregrine he cannot do this because Horace has a right to the view. Peregrine laughed and ordered 8 million tons of bricks. 2. Horace's neighbour, Clarence, is a farmer who has purchased additional fields (AF) to the east of HH. Bertie permitted Clarence to cross the land of HH to reach the new fields. Clarence used many different ways across HH but they all end at a gate in the boundary fence of HH, through which Clarence reaches AF. Clarence built a tractor shed on his land close to the gate. He can only reach the shed by crossing the land of HH. Horace has put a padlock on the gate and told Clarence he may no longer cross HH's land. The law of property is a complex and intricate topic which is subject to numerous exceptions and bodies of rules. The easiest way to understand property law and in turn apply it to legal situations is to identify the key principles upon which property law is based. Primarily it is important to remember that a property right is merely a concept in land, rather
Land Law Problem Question; Adverse Possession, Easements, Covenants and Overriding Interests.
The case in hand deals with Nigel as the registered proprietor of Manor Range. In order to fully assess and understand the burdens on his property, we must first understand the crucial concept of registered title in relation to the traditional system of land holding; unregistered title. If a person has unregistered title to land, in order to sell the property, he or she must go to great lengths to prove ownership of the land. That is, to provide documentary evidence, prove to the purchaser he is the undisputed owner of the land (thus displaying a chain of ownership) and that chain must be traceable by the purchaser for a period of at least fifteen years. Only when all of these criteria are satisfied can the purchaser safely pay his purchase money. Registered title is the 'new' method of land ownership. It was created in a way to streamline the land holding system and divert from the complicated unregistered system. Essentially all details relevant to the land are recorded in one register, the Land Registry (which is open for anyone to view according to the Land Registration Act 1988). Thereby, anyone wishing to purchase a plot of land can, in theory, easily discover all pertinent details applying to that land. Nigel's status as registered proprietor will greatly effect the outcome of the burdens on his land in terms of whether they are enforceable against him. Mark's
Celebrity Couple Problem.
Adverse Possession Seminar Celebrity Couple Problem Question In order to accurately asses the legal standing of the parties involved in this scenario we must look at the principles of adverse possession and their effect on the facts of this particular case. Adverse possession can be defined, as any possession that has been taken that is not consistent to the title of the true owner.1 Adverse possession can lead to the legal title of the true owner being voided and passed to the squatter where they will acquire a legal title through being in possession. There are a number of factors, which have to be satisfied in relation to a legitimate claim for adverse possession and theses will be discussed in relation to the facts of the case in hand. The squatter must establish possession over a period of 12 years; this possession must be continuous over that period. The couple in question purchased and moved into the house in 1990. If we assume that this property was and has been their permanent place of residence since the time of purchase then they will have fulfilled the necessary time period of 12 years. However there are two points we need to bear in mind, firstly under the recently proposed revisions to the legislation regarding adverse possession the couple would need to apply for possession after 10 years at which point the current true owners would be notified of the