Joint Tenants and the Tenants in Common - Assignment Example

Land Law Table of Contents Part A 3 Identify the Area of Law Which Will Determine the Dispute 3 Explain the Law and Apply It to the Facts Which You Have Been Given 4 Conclusion Regarding Who Is Now On the Legal Title and Who Is On the Equitable Title and Their Respective Shares 6 Part B 7 References 10 Bibliography 12 Part A Identify the Area of Law Which Will Determine the Dispute ‘Joint tenants’ and the ‘tenants in common’ are the two prominent areas of the law that can be associated with the dispute as described in the case scenario. Joint Tenancy is determined as the form of co-ownership pertaining to the trust of a property, wherein the members are entitled for equal proportion of share of the property1. Notably, as Alan, Bettina, Daniel, Edward and Claude were initially into joint tenancy for their purchased house, it can clearly be assumed that they had an equal proportion of share for the property. It is worth mentioning in this context that the rule of joint tenancy is guided by the provision of ‘the right of survivorship’, which reflects that following the death of any of the joint owners, the other share holder(s) of the property shall withhold their ownership right with respect to the entire property as per section 33 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925. A similar judgment was given in the case of Gayton v. Kovanda 857 N.E.2d 929 (III. App. 2006), where the ownership right to the entire property was transferred to the Appellee, Mrs. Gayton, after her husband’s demise (being tenants in common), ruling that the appellant, Louis E. Kovanda, was not entitled to the benefit from ‘the right of survivorship’ on the grounds that she was Mr. Gayton’s creditor2. However, as mentioned in the case scenario, two of the five members, i.e. Bettina and Edward, each holding one-fifth of the share for the property eventually entered into the area of ‘tenancy in common’, which made the area of joint tenancy void for them. Thus, it is quite obvious that the five members shall be no more entitled to obtain the benefits of joint tenancy as per the rule of ‘the right of survivorship’. As per the legal area of ‘Tenancy In Common’, these two members are now entitled for the complete ownership of their share in the property and use it as per their will and convenience, such as deciding whether to sale the share or gift it to their heir3. To be precise, in the area of tenancy in common, following the death of any of the co-owners, it is likely that the members’ interest will be passed on to the heirs or the beneficiaries, as mentioned in the legal will of the share holders4. However, Alan, Daniel and Claude remained as joint tenants holding 60% of the property share in total. Herein, the dispute emphasizes Claude’s rights to interfere in Zavier’s and Ray’s possession of the property share followed by the sudden demise of Daniel and Aunt Nora’s possession of the house as per the will of Alan, which can be sorted within the areas of Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common. In precise, the ultimate question in this dispute is who actually owns the shares of Alan and Daniel, following their sudden demise in an accident. Explain the Law and Apply It to the Facts Which You Have Been Given The dispute faced by Claude, concerning his rights to the property share held by Alan and Daniel, as a joint tenant, can be assessed under the Law of Property Act (LPA) 1925. As per the scenario, Daniel, Alan and Claude share 60% of the property (i.e. their residential house) as Joint Tenants, while the tenancy rights of Bettina and Edward have already been separated on the grounds of Tenancy in Common laws. According to the LPA 1925, the members enjoying Joint Tenancy share common interests on the property and thus, Claude, in the described circumstance, can claim his rights to influence the proportional division of shares for the property5. It is worth mentioning in this context that as per section 33 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, following the sudden demise of Alan and Daniel, ‘the right of survivorship’ now belongs to Claude, providing him a right to claim for his share being in Joint Tenancy agreement with Alan and Daniel6. To be precise, according to the LPA 1925, joint tenants are usually regarded as the single entity and the members’ hold equal ownership on the entire property. In case of the death of any member under the agreement of joint tenancy, the entire ownership is shared amidst the existing members as per the LPA 1925. In this respect, this particular ownership of the existing members is referred as the ‘right of survivors’. Furthermore, it must also be taken into account that joint tenancies occur only under the presence of no more than four members holding a legal title. As per the facts of the case, Alan, Daniel and Claude held a single legal title, while Bettina (even though she initially held the legal title along with the other three members) and Edward (who held an equitable title to the property) separated willingly and through the agreement of other members in written, i.e. through letter for Bettina and Skype for Edward, as tenants in common. Thus, it is apparent that for the 60% share owned by Alan, Daniel and Claude, Claude holds the unities of possession, interest, title and time under the LPA 1925. These unities under the LPA 1925 create an apparent distinction within the joint tenancies and tenant in common7. However, when considering the law mentioned in section 53(1)(c) of the LPA 1925, it can be stated that even though being in joint tenancy, Alan and Daniel held their right to “act by a joint tenant operating on his own share”, taking reference from the case of First National Securities Ltd v Hegerty (1985)8. In this regard, this particular provision permits the inter vivos transfer of Alan’s and Daniel’s by them to a stranger(s), which in this case are Aunt Nora, Zavier and Ray. Considering the case of Williams v. Hensman (1861) 1 J & H 5469, the method of dismissal of severance of joint tenancy will become effective in this scenario, as per section 2 of the LP(MP)A 1989. According to this particular provision, the contract of sale or transfer of ownership for an equitable interest of land shall only be entitled to severance when in written. Hence, taking due note of the fact that both Alan and Daniel had their will before they died, the severance will be effective in this scenario to the joint tenancy shared between Alan, Daniel and Claude10. Conclusion Regarding Who Is Now On the Legal Title and Who Is On the Equitable Title and Their Respective Shares Under the common law of property, ‘equitable title’ refers to the right of the person who endures full ownership upon a property only when the other person maintains a legal title with respect to that property. Furthermore, ‘legal title’, according to the common property law, reflects about the actual ownership pertaining to the property11. As mentioned in the case that Daniel has sold his property to Zavier, under the contractual agreement, it shall be legitimate to say that Zavier holds the equitable title and the legal title remains with Daniel12. However, as the contract of sale of the property had not been by a signed writing, Zavier shall not be in possession of the equitable title for the property share, as per section 2 of the LP(MP)A 198913. It is in this context that as Daniel had transferred his share to Ray in written, through his will, it is quite likely that the possession of the property share will remain with Ray, being on the legal title. Similarly, Aunt Nora shall also be in possession of the legal title owing to the transfer of ownership by Alan through his will. Therefore, while Ray, Aunt Nora and Claude will be on the legal title for the 60% of the property share, Zavier will be on the equitable title. Taking the virtues of their rights being on the legal title, Aunt Nora can certainly move into the house, while both Zavier and Ray will have their claim on the property share owned by Daniel, which needs to be settled based on mutual agreement. In case of Zavier and Ray, sections 1(6) and 36(2) of the LPA 1925 will be applicable, based on which, they can have their equitable interests as co-owners of Daniel’s 20% share in the property. Part B Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA) was established in the year 1997. This particular act provides power to the trustees to safeguard their rights with regards to their equitable interests on a co-owned land or property, such as Greenacres as presented in the case scenario. Section 14 of TLATA 1996 illustrates the provisions necessary for the ‘applications for order’. In accordance with this rule, only the person holding the legal title of being a trustee of the land or having equitable interest in a property is obliged with the opportunity to apply for an order to the court. However, it is essential that the property is entitled to the provision being subjected to a trust of land14. Furthermore, under section 14 of TLATA 1996, the court enjoys the discretionary power for making orders with respect to the trustee’s functions and the extent pertaining to the beneficiaries’ interests. In accordance with this particular law, the court might order on the functions to be performed by the trustees in the trust of land or on the extent of interest owned by a person holding share in the trust of land, as deemed fit by the court. However, ‘applications for order’ restricts the court to make any judgment in concerning the appointment of severance of trustees, wherein the application can be held by the court irrespective of the commencement date of the Act, i.e. “whether it is made before or after the commencement of this Act”15. Again, section 15 TLATA 1996 reflects about the matters relevant in determining applications related to the section 14 of the Act as mentioned above. In this respect, it can be well ascertained that the matters being considered in section 15 are vital for the court to decide upon the applications being required for order. The intention of the trust creator is vital in this regard. As mentioned above, the trust creator must be common. Under section 15 of TLATA 1996, it is also considered important to maintain the welfare of a minor, if having an interest in the trust of land16. With reference to the case of Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 All ER 1265, the fact can be justified as in this case too, the UK Supreme court was of the decision that beng under a constructive trust, beneficial entitlement was allowed to a family home17. The interests of the secured creditors are also considered as a matter of consideration for the application of order under TLATA 1996. In relation to Claude’s situation, as per section 14(1) of the TLATA 1996, he will certainly have his right to apply in the court for selling the property. In this context, as per section 15 (1) of the TLATA 1996, the court shall pay due attention towards the intentions of the trust creators, which is Claude in absence of Alan and Daniel as joint tenants, while the rights of Bettina and Edward remains void in this context being on the co-ownership terms of tenancy in common. Correspondingly, attention shall be provided by the court to the purposes for the property being subjected to trust of land as per section 15(1)a of TLATA 1996. As per section 15(2) of TLATA 1996, court will also emphasize the wishes of other beneficiaries of the trust in selling the property share held by Claude, Alan and Daniel as joint tenants. References Bray, J., 2013. Unlocking Land Law. Routledge. Crown, No Date. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. 1989 c. 34 Section 2. [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2 [Accessed 16 April, 2014]. Crown, No Date. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. 1989 c. 34 Section 2. [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2 [Accessed 16 April, 2014]. Crown, No Date. Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Powers of Court Section 14. [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/47/section/14 [Accessed 16 April, 2014]. Crown, No Date. Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Powers of Court Section 15. [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/47/section/15 [Accessed 16 April, 2014]. Jennings, M., 2010. Real Estate Law. Cengage Learning. Jacobus, C. J., 2009. Real Estate Principles. Cengage Learning. Karp, J. & et. al., 2003. Real Estate Law. Dearborn Real Estate. Miller, R. & Jentz, G., 2007. Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today: The Essentials. Cengage Learning. Rossini, C., 1998. English As a Legal Language. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Routledge, 2012. Land Law Lawcards 2012-2013. Taylor & Francis. Schram, J. F., 2006. Real Estate Appraisal. Rockwell Publishing. US Legal, Inc. (2014). Equitable Title Law & Legal Definition. Legal Definitions Home. [Online] Available at: http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/equitable-title/ [Accessed 16 April, 2014]. West, L., 2012. Cohabitants and Constructive Trusts after Jones V Kernott. Trusts – Cases. [Online] Available at: http://www.charlesrussell.co.uk/UserFiles/file/pdf/Private%20Client/PCYB2013_Cohabitants_constructive_trusts_Feb_2013.pdf [Accessed 16 April, 2014]. Bibliography Adamson, J. & Morrison, A., 2011. Law for Business and Personal Use. Cengage Learning. Macfarlanes, 2011. Co-Ownership. Real Estate. [Online] Available at: http://www.macfarlanes.com/media/572106/co-ownership.pdf [Accessed 16 April, 2014]. Walker Kissane & Plummer Solicitors, 2008. Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common. Joint Tenancy Information Sheet. [Online] Available at: http://www.wkp.com.au/Sites/31/Images%20Files/Joint%20Tenancy%20Information%20Sheet%20080307.pdf [Accessed 16 April, 2014]. Read More