Recent case law has clearly bright to the fore the benefits of property owners declaring their beneficial interests. Over the years, the UK tenancy law and especially Joint tenancy law, has held the ‘intention’ part of the parties in a joint tenancy contract under presumption . Declaration of interests at the onset of any property transaction serves to provide clarity about parties’ intention and may help in the future to avoid disputes. This essay seeks to establish the various intention uncertainties that are the cause of peril for the UK joint tenancy and tenancy in common law and the best ways to go about them. This will be done through reference to case law and other legal literature.
For property joint owners, there has always been some uncertainty especially for those who have not made express declaration of their interests. During the Stack v Dowden case, it was expected that the House of Lords would clarify the position, but the House’s decisions, as well as the subsequent of the Supreme Court in Jones v Kernott , have only served to demonstrate the complex issues surrounding this particular legislation.
Joint ownership
In cases where two or more individuals purchase a property in joint names, the law states that the parties involved will hold the legal estate as joint tenants and the beneficial interest in the property as either joint tenants or tenants in common . While joint tenants are entitled to an equal share of the property, tenants in common are able to
This civil court case takes place in a West Virginia school system located in Taylor County, when a general education high school history teacher failed to follow an IEP for Douglas Devart. During the case Devart and his parents Robert and Virginia ended up using aliases by the names of John Doe, Jane Doe and son D.D. Doe as a deterrent from the public so the family would not endure any additional embarrassment, slander, and/or liable regarding the son’s handicap. The defendants of this case were
“Any dealing with the whole of the property requires the involvement of all the co-owners. We have seen that there is a general principle that it is impossible to give a greater right than you have yourself … nemo dat quod non habet” .
| 21 |LO 4 |Basis for inherited property: community property vs common law | |Unchanged | 21 |
• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.
In this case, Success Assets Pty Ltd (Success) borrowed money from Statewest Credit Society Ltd (Statewest) to purchase land, and the land was mortgaged as security. The plaintiff entered into a guarantee in favour of Statewest which secured the loan and all future loans from Statewest to Success. Success used money borrowed from Home Building Society Ltd (Home) to pay the loan from Statewest. Statewest’s rights under the guarantee (which includes those relating to future loans) and Home’s rights under the were transferred to the defendant, Bank of Queensland (BOQ).
In 1999, Maria Avila was hired as a housekeeper by Saratoga Hostel; she was 42 years old. Her duties included: cleaning twelve rooms a day, doing some laundry, and cleaning the hallways as well. Due to the economic crisis of 2009, Saratoga Hostel hired a new business consultant to find ways to reduce costs and personnel. The housekeeping department let go 3 of their 10 employees. The manager then decided to train all employees to clean 14 rooms per day instead of 12. When the training was over, 3 employees could not handle the pressure of the new routine, Avila was of them. These three employees were given another week of training. After that week, when
On 08/18/2015, Barbara Feeman contacted Pasco Sheriff`s Office by telephone to report a Petit Theft.
Joint tenancy can be used for nearly every type of property, including real estate, bank accounts, and general personal property. In New Jersey, married couples who own property in joint tenancy are said to take the property as tenants by the entirety. Both joint tenancy and tenancy by the entirety work in exactly the same way to avoid probate.
Reached East tamaki director as regard this phone is not fully visable Unpractical without a console and presently suspended and rendered unusable hence
On the contrary, in Bruton court’s understanding of “exclusive possession” was a relative concept. Exclusive possession granted to Mr. Bruton was found based on the fact that he was not required to “share possession with the trust, the Council or anyone else”[13] and “the trust did not retain such control”[14]. Whether the grantor possesses title or not was held to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, since LQHT in fact could not exclude the true owner (i.e. the Council) from taking possession, the exclusive possession enjoyed by the “tenant” would be “only as against the grantor and not the rest of the world”[15] and practically dependent on the contractual relationship. This has received support from later cases applying Bruton. In Islington LBC v Green[16]with similar facts to Bruton, the tenant raised an argument that the
Joint Tenants simply means that you’re married or in a de-facto relationship with the person with whom you are buying the property. When you purchase in this structure, if one of the married couple passes away, the other half of the property would automatically be transferred to the surviving partner. This is the most common ownership structure
Two physicians, trying to decrease overhead and remain independent practitioners, decide to share a common space. No formal agreement is reached, but they share the office, ancillary personnel, and billing arrangements. Each physician has their own patients, has their own practice guidelines, has their own set hours, and is not accountable to the other except for occasional on-call coverage. Each physician generates charges only from their own activities and, except for overhead costs, receives all excess profit at year end. Partner A is sued by a patient for malpractice and partner B is named as a codefendant in the lawsuit. Physician A loses the suit and is over insured limits. The court finds that the patient could conclude that the two
Joint tenancy is interest in property held by two or more individuals where each person has undivided and equal interest in the whole property, generally with right of survivorship.
The Land Registration Act (LRA) 1925 has drawn much flak over the years with regards to one of its most important provisions on overriding interests (OI), which often goes unnoticed until it swoops up and takes priority over the rights of a future purchaser. These interests often come in the form of other occupiers in the property with an equitable interest and, like in the case of Boland , this leaves the lender in a tight spot when they find out about the existence of these interests only after they have initiate proceedings for possession against the defaulting borrowers. Due to the other occupier’s concealed nature on the property register, the lenders have regained their footing by applying the concept of overreaching and ….. The Law Commission, on the other hand, contemplated abolishing these interest altogether but did not go to that extent because it was neither feasible nor desirable Instead, they shrank their impact on land by reforming the operation and scope of the OI. With LRA 2002 sch 3 para 2, lenders now have more control over what may bite them. …. This essay will access…. with a focus on how the lending world have dealt with the implications of Boland…. The best way to access the impact of … would be to go through the pre – post blabla to show how the thing has balanced.
All ER Reprints/[1914-15] All ER Rep /Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheep Breeders ' Association and