Analysis of Property Law Case - Essay Example

Property Law There is a right to occupation of a matrimonial home1 however under the Family Act, a spouse can make a charge on the legal interest of the other spouse and if it is real estate, a charge on unregistered land will be a Class F charge. Since Annie Crane has registered a Class F charge on the property, there is a need to examine whether the land has been properly registered at all. The existence of a DII land charge further suggests that the land is not registered.2 There is the possibility of existence of a restrictive covenant on the land could be binding on the successors, in this case, Mr. Crane Jr, because a covenant on registered land would be registered as well and not require a DII charge. The details of the charge need careful examination to determine any existing prior rights. Bearing these aspects in view, the existence of a CI land charge suggests that Mr. Crane’s right in the property may be in the nature of an equitable charge that is acquired by a tenant or statutory owner for life.3 There have been successive charges over this land, hence applying section 97 of the Property Act of 1925, any puisne mortgage existing in Mr. Crane’s favor will be determined by the order of registration, however the Land Charges Act4 would make such a mortgage void where a subsequent purchaser of the property is concerned. However, since Mr. Crane has registered the property and the deed exists, this problem may be averted. Ms. Chandra: Section 53(1) of the now-repealed Law of Property Act of 1925 had clarified that no oral interests can be created in property. However Section 53(2) included the provision for the existence of a constructive trust arising in those cases where a former co-habitee asserts a beneficial interest arising out of an informal arrangement, such as that Ms. Chandra had with Mr. Crane, in providing funds for improvement of the property from her own savings. The Land Registration Act of 2002 which has replaced the Law of property Act of 1925 also includes a formality requirement of a signature, even for documents in the prescribed electronic format that are “to be regarded for the purpose of any enactment” as a deed.5 Ms. Chandra’s interest is not a legal one and may not fall under the category of protection of land charges.6 This could have entitled her to a second legal charge over the land, which would have been enforceable even in the cases of unregistered land, where the charge has not been registered as a class C1 charge7. She has been cohabiting with Mr. Crane and there is no special law that applies in the case of property shared by cohabitees, although the Law Commission has recommended property rights for separating cohabiting couples on par with divorcing married couples8. Beneficial interests are to be determined by considering the intentions of the parties at the time of purchase rather than by subsequent events9, hence Ms. Chandra’s contribution to the property from her savings, which has also elevated the value of the property, may be considered by the Courts as a ground for the existence of a constructive trust. Lord Justice Grant stated in the case of Grant v Edwards10 that when a party has not made a contribution to the purchase price and no written agreement exists, the party must demonstrate that a common intention existed for a beneficial interest to ensue. Ms. Chandra may have to demonstrate that such a common intention existed and the Courts have generally looked to the expenditures incurred on the house which may demonstrate common intention11. However, since she has given up her tenancy and put all her savings into the property and may be entitled to a beneficial share12 in the proceeds of the sale in accordance with her investments in accordance with the principle that was established in the case of Oxley v Hiscock.13 The courts have recognized such beneficial rights as being proprietary in nature.14 The Hollies: An easement is therefore an interest in the land which will continue even if ownership of the land changes.15 Easements are also governed by the formality requirements under the Land Registration Act of 2002 and a non compliance with the formality requirements can make an interest invalid and non enforceable16. The written notification in the Deed regarding the easement may suffice to close the old path and formalize the use of the new path, however it must be noted that parking space for the Hollies is very restricted. When a right of way has been granted over a road that is not up to the adoption standards, the person to whom such right of way has been allowed will have the right to undertake further construction to bring the road up to standard.17 Mr. Johnson may have such a right. Moreover, there have been disputes over the years on the issue of access and drainage and the engineers’ report shows that the structural damage caused to the property has arisen due to leaking from the underground drainage system, which has caused the subsidence of the soil. There is also an open manhole and Mr. Crane could be held liable for any expenses arising out of repairs to the Hollies which is over and above the insured amount, due to his failure to attend to the leaking pipes. Where Mr. Brown is concerned, there is no formal written registration of his interest in the property and as stated earlier, the Land Registration Act of 2002 mandates the registration of all interests in property, through the formality requirement, failing which the interest will not be legally enforceable.18 Mr. Brown has been in adverse possession of the basement for six years and since he has been living in it, the conditions to invoke his impregnable possession include physical occupation of the property do exist19. As stated in the case of Powell v McFarlane, “Factual possession signifies an appropriate degree of physical control…….. ……broadly, I think what must be shown as constituting factual possession is that the alleged possessor has been dealing with the land as an occupying owner might have been expected to deal with it.”20 However, possession is no more nine tenths of the law. The freehold owner has the right to oppose a squatter’s claim, because no matter how long the possession of the property, it will not bar the paper owner’s title (in this case Mr. Crane) to the registered land21, because adverse possession itself will no longer constitute ownership if the registered title holders oppose the claim. But it is also necessary to take into consideration the fact that although the Land Registration Act of 2002 has eliminated several overriding interests, this does not include an interest belonging to a person who is in actual occupation of the property. It does appear however that a subsequent purchaser will not be obliged to honor Mr. Brown’s possession of the basement and Mr. Crane may have to request him to leave. Bibliography * Brude-Radcliffe, Godfrey, 2005. “Development and the Law” Taylor and Francis * Clake, Alison and Kohler, Paul, 2005, “Property Law: Commentary and Materials”, Cambridge University Press * “Cohabitation: the financial consequences of relationship breakdown” Law Commission Paper (2007) Cm 7182, January 31, 2008 * Halsbury’s Laws of England. Easements and Profits a prendre (4th edn) para 1-239 Cases cited: * Barclays Bank v Buhr (2001) EWCA Civ 1223 * Burns v Burns (1984) Ch 317 at pp 32H to 329C * Grant v Edwards (1986) Ch 638 646H-647D * Gissing v Gissing (1971) AC 886 * Nationwide Building Society v James Beauchamp (a firm) (2001) EWCA Civ 275 470 * Oxley v Hiscock (2004) EWCA Civ 546 * Powell v McFarlane (1977) 38 P&CR 452 at * Turton v Turton (1988) Ch 542 * Walker v Hall Ch 542 at 554G-555D Read More

 

Read More