Is she going to contest the problems or is she going to live with it Let us take a close look at the problems that might plague Pamela.
Issue 1 1 Brian's twin brother, Robert, had contributed one third of the purchase price when Brian bought the house with the intention of living there with his brother and an express trust was drawn up confirming Robert's interest. However, Robert was often in and out of prison for offences such as burglary and shoplifting and was in prison at the time Brian sold the house to Pamela.
In this issue it is clear that Robert is not aware of the sale deed executed by Brian, since Robert is in prison. Also, Brian is the sole proprietor of the Brampton House. Brian, as mentioned has entered into an 'express trust' with his brother. Through this 'express trust' Robert can live in the house and not claim anything legally. Hence Brian selling the house to Pamela is legally valid and the sale deed asserts the fact that Pamela is the bona fide buyer and Brian is the bona fide seller. The 'express trust' executed between the brothers is not a legal instrument and hence not legally binding on the executed sale deed. Under these conditions Robert cannot hold Pamela to ransom nor can he ask Brian for his share of the money; got from the sale. It is up to Brian to give Robert, if at all he wishes, any share. Basically it is a problem between the brothers and will not Pamela's stance as present owner of Brampton House.
Issue 2 Philippa claims that on 1 September 2007 Brian let a room in the house to commence on 1 February 2008 when she is due to start work as a senior manager at a major department store in the area.
Philippa's claim of being part of Brampton House as a tenant is valid - under the Tenancy Act prevailing at the time and place when the house was sold to Pamela. Pamela has to honour the agreement entered between Brian and Philippa. This is subject to a written agreement between Brian and Philippa. We are made to assume that there exists such an agreement. If there was no such written agreement and it was only an oral arrangement that was discussed between Brian and Philippa, then Philippa cannot do anything now; under the present ownership of the house. Hence Philippa will be a headache for Pamela depending on what Philippa has to prove.
Issue 3 Natasha, a neighbour and a friend of Brian's, maintains that in August 2007, Brian entered into an agreement with her that she could use a path across the garden of Brampton House in order to take a shortcut to the main road and thereby reach the local gym far more quickly.
Here, 'Brian entered into an agreement with her' is assumed to be a written agreement. In such a scenario, Natasha has a 'right of passage' through Brampton House irrespective of the owner. She can use the path that runs through the garden and continue to go to the local gym and Pamela cannot object to it. But this 'right of passage' will be confined only to Natasha and will not be binding on any of her friends or relatives and or legal heirs.
On the contrary if there was no such written agreement between Brian and Natasha then Natasha can still continue to use the path to reach her gym, provided Natasha can prove that she has been using the path for many years. It may be so, since Natasha is a neighbour of Brampton House, irrespective of t