College aantekeningen

Property Law Notes and Answer Structure UOL LLB (No plagiarism/AI)

1 keer verkocht

Vak
Property Law (LA2003)

Instelling
Birkbeck, University Of London (BBK)

These are my property law notes and answer structure that I use in UOL LLB exams, they are free of plagiarism and has no traces of AI like ChatGPT.

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 4 van de 35 pagina's

Bekijk voorbeeld

Geupload op 31 mei 2023
Aantal pagina's 35
Geschreven in 2022/2023
Type College aantekeningen
Docent(en) Martin dixon
Bevat Alle colleges

land law
property law
uol llb
property rights
adverse possession
land disputes
law exam

Instelling
Birkbeck, University of London (BBK)
Studie Onbekend
Vak
Property Law (LA2003)

€15,20

In winkelwagen

Op verlanglijstje

100% tevredenheidsgarantie
Direct beschikbaar na je betaling
Lees online óf als PDF
Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten

Property Law Answer Structure (No plagiarism or AI)

Co-ownership of land (Express Trust)

Where land is conveyed to co-owners who are of full age, they will be joint

tenants, and there can only be four of them at most (S (34)(2) Law of Property

Act (LPA) 1925).

❖ Legal ownership

Maximum of four legal owners may be listed on the title. Usually, it is the

first four people listed in the sale agreement. There cannot be a tenancy in

common of a legal title to land (S1(6) LPA 1925), therefore there is only joint

tenants at law.

❖ Equitable ownership

In determining who owns the property, equitable ownership is what matters

most. The general rule is that equity follows the law (Stack v Dowden (2007)).

However, unequal contribution to the purchase price will result in the

assumption of a TIC (Bull v Bull (1953)). This assumption can be rebutted by

express conveyance to the parties as JTs. They will then be JTs in equity as

this will prevail over the previous assumption (Goodman v Gallant (1986), Roy

v Roy (1991)).

When the land is held by JTs, S36(2) LPA 1925 mandates that it be held

on trust, which is now defined as a trust of land subject to the Trusts of Land

and Appointment of Trustees Act (TLATA) 1996.

Where there is a relationship of a commercial nature, such as partnership

property (Re Fuller (1933)), there is an equitable presumption against joint

tenancy.

Zack Scott’s UOL notes

, ❖ Severance

Through the process of severance, a joint tenancy turns into a tenancy in

common, eliminating survivorship in equity. The act of severance creates a share

in the property among the former joint tenants which is equal to the shares of all

the other tenants in common.

4 methods of severance:

1. Notice in writing (S36(2) LPA 1925) Notice will be deemed served if it is

left at the last known address and is not returned.

According to S36(2) LPA 1925, a notice in writing is required to be

sent to the other JTs notifying them of the intention to sever. It does not

need to be in a specific format or form (Re Drapers Conveyance (1969)).

An immediate intention to sever must be made clear on the face of the

notice in writing (Harris v Goddard (1983)). In the case of ordinary post,

when it reaches the other co-owners last known address, it will be

considered severed (S196(3) LPA 1925). An email is not a valid form of

notice (E.ON UK plc v Gilesports Ltd (2012)). As long as there is proof

showing the written notice was sent, the other JTs are not required to

have received it in order for severance to have taken place (Re 88 Berkeley

Road (1971)).

Williams v Hensman (1861) methods

2. An act of the JT operating on his own share.

Actual alienation or something equivalent would be required (Nielson-

Jones v Fedden (1975)).

3. Mutual agreement

Zack Scott’s UOL notes

, If parties retain their right to change their positions, a mere agreement

in principle will not suffice (Gore, Snell v Carpenter (1990)). A full and

final agreement is needed.

A severance could occur with just an agreement in principle (Burgess v

Rawnsley (1975)).

4. Mutual conduct

As in Williams v. Hensman (1861), mutual conduct, which is any course

of dealings sufficient to establish a tenancy in common, may be used to

prove severance.

As in Burgess v. Rawnsley (1975), the conduct must be such that the

pattern of dealings between all the parties clearly demonstrates a

common intention to sever the joint tenancy.

The pattern of dealings of all the joint tenants has to be sufficient to

reflect their agreement to exclude the future operation of the right of

survivorship (Quigley v Masterson (2011)).

According to Gore and Snell v. Carpenter (1990), the parties' long-

standing beliefs that the tenancy is in common rather than joint are

regarded as mutual conducts of severance.

Mutual conduct can be inferred from the execution of wills where all

the parties mention having shares in the estate, as in Re Wilford's Estate

(1879).

The evidence that they intend to deal with the property in common, such

as the periodic distribution of the property between themselves, can also

be used to prove mutual conduct (Re Denny (1947)).

Zack Scott’s UOL notes

, Unless it is an exceptional case, the shares will be distributed equally among

the co-owners upon a severance of the JT, regardless of contribution to the

purchase price (Stack v Dowden).

❖ Effect of survivorship rules

S3(4) Administration of Estates Act 1925 stipulates that a JTs interest

ceases at death.

The younger is considered to have survived the elder when deaths of joint

tenants occur under circumstances that make it unclear who died first (S184 LPA

1925; Hickman v Peacey (1945)).

❖ Sale of the property

Courts will take into account whether the property is required to provide

accommodation for the lives of the co-owners (Harris v Harris).

When a mortgagee requests an order to sale, it will be granted unless there

are extremely compelling reasons to prevent the creditor from getting his share

(First National Bank v Achampong (2003); Bank of Ireland v Bell (2001)).

❖ Relevant provisions of TLATA and case law

S12 grants beneficiaries who are entitled to an interest in possession of land

a right of occupation, provided that the trust permits it. No right of occupation

exists if the land is either unavailable or unsuitable for the beneficiary to occupy.

S13 enables trustees to exclude or restrict another one’s right to occupy,

however, the power has to be exercised reasonably.

S14 enables anyone with an interest to apply for a court order.

Criteria in S15 which the courts must take into consideration when resolving

disputes:

a) Intentions of person who created the trust (S15(1)(a));

b) Purposes for which the property is held on a trust (S15(1)(b));

Zack Scott’s UOL notes

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Focus op de essentie

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper zackscott. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €15,20. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 68175 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Start met verkopen