Question 1 Isaac may have a claim in the Groove property under the principles of trusts. Constructive trusts in land are created when an individual acquires an equitable interest in land. In such a case the legal owner of the property is regarded as a trustee of the land, holding the equitable interest for both the legal owner and the non-legal owner.1 Lord Diplock’s ruling in Gissing v Gissing provides the starting point for assessing Isaac’s situation and the extent to which he can challenge Rose’s request for vacant possession and presumably all of the interest in the Groove property…
Under the common intention constructive trust, when one cohabitee held legal title to property, cohabitees would share the equitable interests whether or not they had made direct contributions to the purchase of the property provided the non-legal owner could prove that there was a common intention that the parties would share the beneficial interest. Moreover, the non-legal owner must also prove that he/she acted to his/her detriment pursuant to this common intention.2 Isaac can be said to have acted to his own detriment pursuant to a common intention that he would share the equitable interest in the Groove home. To start with, he not only quit his well-paid job to move to the Groove home, he gave up his own accommodations at the time. The common intention is further exemplified by Rose’s statement that she had been looking for someone to share the home with and invited Isaac to be that person. The fact that Isaac move to the home and gave up his job and home to do so clearly establishes a common intention. ...
istence of a constructive trust as evidence of a common intention.3 Evidence of a common intention can therefore be constructed out of the facts of the case for discussion. Rose expressed an intention to share the beneficial interest in the Groove home with Isaac and Isaac acted pursuant to that common intention by first making indirect financial contributions and acting in ways that supported that intention to his own detriment. Secondly, and at a later stage, Isaac made direct contributions toward the purchase of the Groove home by discharging the mortgage and taking up household expenses. Thirdly, with Rose’s approval Isaac spent 60,000 pounds on further improvements to the property. In the first two instances, Isaac freed up Rose’s own disposable income. In the third instances, Isaac improved the value of the property. This would provide evidence of the acquisition of a beneficial interest in the home pursuant to a common intention.4 Arguably, a resulting trust will be implied out of the direct financial contributions made by Isaac in discharging part of the mortgage obligations on the Groove property.5 Ultimately, the question is whether or not in all the circumstances it would be unfair or unjust to permit Rose, the legal owner of the property, to now treat the ownership of the Groove property in a manner that would encroach upon the acquired equitable rights of Isaac. As stated in McKenzie v McKenzie, a constructive trust will arise: Out of, and is equity’s way of giving effect to, the common intentions of the parties regarding allocation of the beneficial ownership.6 Ultimately, the courts will imply the existence of a constructive trust in circumstances where it would be unjust or fraudulent to permit total beneficial interest in the property to the ...
Cite this document
(“Land Law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/finance-accounting/23140-land-law
(Land Law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 Words)
“Land Law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/finance-accounting/23140-land-law.
(ii) Mr. Wood has a six year lease to the cottage of the farm though he has never lived there. Further the lease allows him to buy the freehold on sale of the farm. (iii) There is a shortcut in the land used by neighbours to the local pub and they claim to have prior right to its use and will continue using it.
People, who live together without being married, but have a relationship similar to that of married couples, are known as cohabiters. A presumption of marriage can rise from cohabitation. The test of establishing the presumption of marriage is depended on the length of cohabitation, general repute as a man and wife and not friendship only, whether the union has children and the degree to which they bring together their financial resources.
Pugh-Smith, Sinclair and Upton describe an easement as: An interest in land which entitles a landowner to use, or restrict the use of, his neighbour’s land in a particular way without giving him possession of it.1 In evaluating the existence and binding nature of the various easements created out of the sale of Margaret’s terraced houses, it is necessary to first establish the essential characteristics of an easement.
for distinguishing between fixtures and fittings. These tests highlight not only the importance of distinguishing between fixtures and fittings, but the major differences between the two. Although the distinctions are not always clear, a common trend can be identified: the significance of the item in terms whether or not it has become so attached to the land, that it should not be regarded as anything other than a part of the land.
If permission to use Redcap is personal, Noddy’s remedies will exist under the law of contract. However, if the permission/licence to use Redcap created a proprietary interest in the land, Noddy’s remedies are founded on principles applicable land law.
It defines the range of functions persons may exercise in given situations at a given time, the so called functional theory of property. The idea of property in land is a consequence of social evolution regardless of the origin of the property and the legal system recognizes a category of rights relating to a property.
A lease of land involves both proprietary and contractual rights for both the landlord and the tenant, and so is subject to contradictory pressures. A tenant is the 'owner' of land, albeit temporarily and subject to restriction but equally he is a consumer contracting for the provision of 'service'.
le of termination by fourteen days notice in writing.1 Specifically, the agreement was not intended to permit the appellant protection from eviction under the Rents Act.2 The appellant enjoyed exclusive possession of the room under the license and made an application to
consequence of social evolution regardless of the origin of the property and the legal system recognizes a category of rights relating to a property. Property law declares what society regards as property, it creates or constitutes property rights, defines the legal incidence