Legal Concept and Equitable Ownership - Essay Example

?Property Law Module Module Number: Academic Year: Seminar Essay Question: Case Study involving the application of Property Law Number: Introduction This case study depicts a compound legal problem whereby a will has been violated through fraud. Acacia Garden is the property under dispute. The house has changed ownership from Albert to his grandchildren Brian, Chloe and Derek through a will. The new owners do not seem to agree on how they should share the property, more so after Albert’s death. As a result, Brian has sought a conveyance and with an alleged approval of Derek, sells off the property to Eric without the knowledge of Chloe, who also owns the property. Albert is no more, and therefore, he cannot be called up to elaborate on any unclear issues in relation with the will, such as the sharing mechanisms of the house. The acquisition and or the act of ceding ownership of the property by any of the three new owners of Acacia Garden, on condition of its being commingled with each others claim on the same attracts ‘confusion.’ Notably, in confusion, any of the three new owners of the property are commingled, and as such it cannot be split and reverted back to its original condition, before Albert had written the will. In light of this, the property is expected to retain its features as envisaged in the will, and as such the will binds the three regarding the management and use of the property. Through the will, the three of Albert’s grandchildren have legal and equitable ownership of the house (Proffatt, 1989, p.31). Legal concept and equitable ownership Chloe like her co-owners of the property have the legal and equitable ownership rights on Acacia Garden, subject to the will. Therefore, she should be entitled to any returns that may arise from the sale or use of the property. The idea of beneficial ownership, as a deviation from the precise legal ownership forms an imperative part of the English legal tradition. In Medieval times, an aggrieved party could only gain legal redress if they supported their petition with an existing legal document. Such documents were usually few and rigid and rarely served justice. In such scenarios, plaintiffs served the Chancellor with their petitions, complaining that the prevailing conditions fell beyond the scope of the general systems. In response, the Chancellor then opted to issue or retain remedy to the plaintiff depending on his judicious evaluation of the case. These verdicts eventually evolved into a structure of law referred to as equity (Ayotte, & Bolton, 2011, p. 3401). Equity is a distinct body of laws that is different from the prevailing common law. From this legal concept, the current English law separates equity from legal ownership, in which case, equity permits the exploitation and gain from the property to be looked at in a different way from the legal possession of the same. Whereas Chloe and Derek retain ownership of the property, Brian would manage it and share whatever returns it yields with his concurrent owners. But despite the fact that Acacia Garden is a concurrent estate, he has refused to honour the interests of the others. According to Craig, and de Burca, (2011, p.120), the property is possessed by three persons simultaneously and as such the parties have equitable rights to it including its sale. Chloe should emphasize her role by citing the joint tenancy rule, which refers to a concurrent relationship whereby a property is owned by two or more parties simultaneously and under the same legal document. In this case the will written by decedent Albert serves as the binding legal document that should serve its purpose of ensuring the fiduciary duty plays out in the management and or sale of the property. Regardless of the sanctity of the will, Brian opts to violate and sell the property without following the due process of the law. Brian’s blatant disregard for common law presents legal challenges which may not be easily solved, especially now that he cannot be traced. Derek also claims ignorance of the deal. The challenges range from the registration of the land, to the pursuit of justice, which may result in the revocation of the property and its reversion back to the three owners. If Derek and Chloe are lucky, the court may order Brian to settle the damages that have stemmed from his actions including a breach of the fiduciary responsibility (Stuckenschmidt, & Stubkjaer, 2003, p17). Fraud and breach of will The violation of the will by Brian calls for a two-prong legal battle; one against Brian and another one against Brian and Eric for their impropriety and a breach of the fiduciary responsibility, guiding wills and contracts. This theory is based on the fact that the parties connived to rob other legitimate owners of their rights to own the property (Aceleanu, 2012, p.45). A fundamental principle in common law holds that a party who has been associated with fraud does not claim ownership of a stolen property, so an individual who buys a stolen property does not obtain title. In this case, both parties knew that they were engaging in an inappropriate act but, opted to proceed with the transaction anyway. As such, Eric has lost the bona fide status of a buyer because he has purchased the property worth ?600,000 with full knowledge of the flaws in the seller's title. Eric apparently induced the sale of the house through fraudulent representations, by aiding the forgery of Derek’s signature. This malpractice earns him a voidable title from the legitimate owners of the property, who comprise the three grandchildren of Albert. Such a title can be invalidated by the bona fide property owner, especially upon discernment of the fraud. This will have to be ascertained by court, considering the fact that Brian has disappeared, and the only way to get him is by seeking a court order authorising his arrest (Aalberts, 2011, p.55). The disappearance of Brian calls for the filing of a case against Eric, where he should answer to the charges of a breach of the fiduciary role by knowingly engaging in fraud, and if possible, Chloe and Derek should request the court to order him to return the property, pending the apprehension of his co-accused. Eric V. Brian Contracts are accords that are provided for and honoured by the law. The contract between Brian and Eric regarding the sale of Acacia Gardens creates room for parties concerned to act in the best interest of all. The main role of such an agreement is to set up the conditions by which signatories have enshrined their privileges and obligations. Contracts are generally provided for under acts and common law as well as in private law. Private law involves the provisos of the contract between the signatories, as they have rights to surpass a number of state law provisions outlining formality aspect of contracts (Aalberts, 2011, p.35). The United Kingdom has created its unique common law, which guides such agreements. It consists of a system of jurisprudence built over time by the local courts on the analysis of cases. In light of the sanctity of the contract law within the United Kingdom’s justice system, Eric reserves the right to sue Brian for the latter’s unjustifiable letdown with regard to his performance of his contractual obligations. In this case, Brian has sold to him a property that is likely to result in dispute over ownership (Mattei, 2000, p.12). A legal suit for violation of an agreement comes to be when one or more parties exhibit a conduct that fails to fulfil the provisions of the contract and causes the others to suffer quantifiable damages. Nonetheless, Eric might be ensnared into the legal battle, especially if the property seller proves that he knowingly bought the property that has serious defects, and went even further to forge one of the bona fide owners signature. Remedies Remedies for violations of the contracts are not meant to punish the defendant party, mainly because the offense falls under the category of civil cases (Wade, 2008, p.344). The remedies that the court may explore for Brian’s breach of the agreement encompass: financial damages, restitution, and rescission of the contract; specific performance and reformation. Notably, specific performance is not a good option considering the fact that the issue at hand is about the sale of a real estate, whose ownership is in dispute. Should the court award the plaintiff a money damage award, the amount shall be inclusive of the injuries caused by the contract violations (Chambers, Davies, & Monti, 2010, p.32). Eric would be required to quantify the amount of monetary damages he has suffered following the delay regarding the renovation of the property for resell. Moreover, Eric would be enjoying the benefit of the bargain that has brought him and Brian together. Restitution for Eric would restore him to the position he was in, prior to his entering into the business transactions and contract with Brian. If Eric opts to seek restitution, he may forfeit the remedies for lost returns that have come with the breach. Under restitution, the plaintiff would stand to get back any resources, which he gave to the defendant under the sale (Maechling, 1991, p.22). Notably, it would be appropriate for Eric to apply for restitution should Chloe and Derek’s petition succeeds in annulling the contract between him and the defendant due to impropriety. Reformation allows for the modification of the letter and spirit of a contract to undo any wrongs that the plaintiff has suffered. Rescission refers to the remedy that ends the responsibilities and associations of the parties to a contract. In order to achieve rescission, Brian and Eric must be taken back to the position they were in prior to the signing of the contract (Wade, 2008, p.344). In this case Eric may rescind the contract for fraud. However, for a rescission that is informed by fraud to be successful, evidence in support of the unfair practice must be tabled before the court. These may include the fake documents and forged signatures. Chloe and Derek should also follow suit in order to strengthen their position in the petition against Brian and Eric for allegedly conniving to rob them of the property. The legal interpretation and or additional direction may be provided by the probate court. Probate Court Following the death of Albert, a probate legal case may be filed in court to ascertain the authenticity of the will that the testator had written before his death. It would be imperative to corroborate if the document meets the legal thresholds, and to allow room for the appointment of an executor. In case a probate takes effect, witness testimonies will be required to support the authenticity of the will. In the United Kingdom, statutes are in place to provide evidence for a "self-proving" will, a provision that has to be achieved during the implementation of the will in a proper way. In case of a self-proving case, the witness testimony may be forgone during probate. The primary mandate of a probate court is to prove the veracity of a will. Unless otherwise indicated in any legal body, Chloe reserves the right to take the will to a probate court before it can be implemented properly, and in line with the spirit of the decedent. As a general principle, the will has no credence under the law until the court has probated it. Although, it remains unclear whether the will in question has been probated, under the strict English law, there is a likelihood that two years after Albert’s demise, the will may have been probated. The only problem now facing Chloe is the mismanagement and the change of ownership of property. Brian or the relevant attorney who helped Albert with writing the will would need to release it for tabling before the court, failure to which they would be vulnerable to court penalties for hiding or damaging the will or for refusing to table it within a given span of time. Probate processes are usually convened in the region where the testator had a residence immediately before his death. The English legal tradition provides for a transfer of the legal proceedings to the region where the decedent had property ownership (Karp, et al, 2003, p.17). . During probate, all the necessary documents with the current information about the testator's wills would need to be tabled for probate (Proffatt, 1989, p.31). In case Albert’s later will supports all of the wills signed early on, two different wills would need to be tabled for probating. Probate justice systems often seek to interpret the declared letter and spirit of the decedent regarding inheritance of a given property. In this case, the probate court’s main role would involve focussing on the mismanagement of the property and offering appropriate direction on whether Brian acted within his mandate and followed the law of inheritance and property disposition. The court would then issue a verdict on how to handle Brian. Generally, Brian has opted wrongfully by purporting to micro-manage the property for his own economic expediency. As a universal principle, the probate would need the original document in order to verify its authenticity. The court would not need a copy of the will unless the court is properly furnished about the whereabouts of the original copy (Dijkman, 2007, p.13). If a duly verified duplicate of the will has been tabled before the court, the judges may declare it admissible. UK has special court sessions such as chancery courts, which take care of such concerns. But in case Chloe is not in a position to present the original copy of the will, a painstaking search for the document would be ordered as it is vital, especially before a duplicate can be approved as a substitute for lost the will. According to Beyans (2008, p.27), a codicil, which serves the complementary role to a will, may be needed for easier disposition of the property, if the original document has been modified. It is often filed for probating alongside the will which it seeks to adjust. In case it is found to be credible and can meet the thresholds as a distinct testamentary instrument that can stand alone, the codicil only, can be allowed to probate. All of these measures are meant to guide the process of reclaiming the property and sharing it equitably amongst the beneficiaries without any acts of prejudice. Likely consequences Chloe and Eric may not achieve much, especially if they chose to act on their own. Most importantly, a proper legal redress should ensure the property is returned back to the owners. Nonetheless, this may not happen soon because Brian has disappeared, and searching for him could prove to be a daunting task. Either way, Eric and Brian and perhaps Derek could lose before the court, especially if the court orders a return of the property to the legitimate owners. Meanwhile, the issue of land on which the property sits will need to be registered afresh in compliance with the English law. The Land Registration Act 2002 laws make it compulsory for land owners in certain places within the country’s jurisdiction to register their property. In light of the will, the three parties jointly own the property. The most important legal implication to this development is that the three parties each own the property wholly. In general terms, they must share it equitably if they decide to dissolve it. Generally, in case one party dies the remaining parties would own the whole property without any ado or dispositions. This implies that the new property owners do not need to remit any extra tax to the government. However, in this case, Brian’s whereabouts remain unknown. He can neither be declared dead, nor sought after to append his signature on the land registration forms. This dilemma embodies a long-drawn legal solution. Conclusion A will has been inexistent since time immemorial. However, with competing interests, especially among beneficiaries, most of wills have been violated in the face of rampant corruption, and selfish interests among parties. In light of these challenges, the common law has evolved to crack down on these malpractices and guarantee justice with regard to the disposition of decedent’s property. In this case, Albert’s will has been violated by Brian, whom by virtue of his upper hand in the will, and the personal economic problems, has decided to violate the doctrine of legal and equitable ownership of Acacia Gardens, by selling without duly informing his concurrent owners. The result presents a tricky legal scenario, whereby his accomplice in the shadowy business deal comes out a victim. Both Chloe and Eric may file cases in the court of law in their quest for justice. Chloe should team up with Derek to sue Eric for inappropriately claiming title to the property. Eric also reserves the right to sue Brian for selling to him a property whose title and ownership is in question. For Eric to achieve any legal successes, he will have to prove his innocence regarding the development of fake documents for the transfer of the property. Chloe will need to file a petition in an ordinary court, levelling fraud charges against Eric and Brian, in order to reclaim back the property, after which she will initiate legal proceedings in a probate court in order to seek the court’s verdict on the validity of the will, and how best to share the property. It is likely that the property will revert back to the bona fide owners for sharing, but after a long-drawn legal battle. In the meantime, the court may manage the property. Bibliography Aalberts, R.J., (2011), Real Estate Law, Cengage Learning, New York, 7-69. Aceleanu, M.I., ‘The Anglo-Saxon model of employment in the current economic context. The case of United Kingdom,’ [2012] 19 TAE 45. Ayotte, K., & Bolton, P., ‘Optimal Property Rights in Financial Contracting’ [2011] 24 RFS 3401. Beyans, N.R., (2008), Real Estate and Property Law for Paralegals, Second Edition, Aspen Publishers Online, London, 5-27. Chambers, D., Davies, G., & Monti, G., (2010), European Union Law: Cases and Materials, Cambridge University Press, London, 32-89. Craig, P.Q.C., & de Burca, G., (2011), EU Law : Text, Cases and Materials: Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford University Press, London, 12-78. Dijkman, M., (2007), Europe Real Estate Yearbook 2007: Assets, Industry Trends, Market Players, Real Estate Publishers BV, London, 13-97 Karp, et al., (2003), Real Estate Law, Dearborn Real Estate, London, 3-19. Maechling, C., ‘Improving Our Criminal Justice System: Can We Borrow from Europe's Civil Law Tradition?’ [1991] 9 TBR 22. Mattei, U., (2000), Basic Principles of Property Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Introduction, Greenwood Publishing Group, London, 3-47. Proffatt, J., (1989), The Curiosities and Law of Wills, Library of Alexandria, London, 31-51. Stuckenschmidt, H., & Stubkjaer, E., (2003), The Ontology and Modelling of Real Estate Transactions: European Jurisdictions, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, London, 5-51. Wade, M., ‘The Januses of Justice – How Prosecutors Define the Kind of Justice Done Across Europe,’ [2008] 16 EJCCLCJ 344. Read More