Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 369 views

    Problem Question Solving Sample: Express Co-Ownership

    Uploaded by

    Saydul Imran
    Mr. Norton purchased a flat in 1998 for his three sons - Mark, Luke, and John - who were studying in London. The flat was registered under their names as beneficial joint tenants. In 2000, Mark sold his interest in the flat to John. In 2001, Luke offered to sell his interest to John, who agreed in principle but they did not agree on a price. Luke then died in an accident, leaving his estate equally to Mark and John. A dispute has now arisen over who owns the flat, who is entitled to occupy it, and whether it should be sold.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Problem Question Solving Sample: Express Co-Ownership

    Uploaded by

    Saydul Imran
    369 views2 pages
    Mr. Norton purchased a flat in 1998 for his three sons - Mark, Luke, and John - who were studying in London. The flat was registered under their names as beneficial joint tenants. In 2000, Mark sold his interest in the flat to John. In 2001, Luke offered to sell his interest to John, who agreed in principle but they did not agree on a price. Luke then died in an accident, leaving his estate equally to Mark and John. A dispute has now arisen over who owns the flat, who is entitled to occupy it, and whether it should be sold.

    Original Title

    QS_Express_SG_ P_65_Q-2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mr. Norton purchased a flat in 1998 for his three sons - Mark, Luke, and John - who were studying in London. The flat was registered under their names as beneficial joint tenants. In 2000, Mark sold his interest in the flat to John. In 2001, Luke offered to sell his interest to John, who agreed in principle but they did not agree on a price. Luke then died in an accident, leaving his estate equally to Mark and John. A dispute has now arisen over who owns the flat, who is entitled to occupy it, and whether it should be sold.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    369 views2 pages

    Problem Question Solving Sample: Express Co-Ownership

    Uploaded by

    Saydul Imran
    Mr. Norton purchased a flat in 1998 for his three sons - Mark, Luke, and John - who were studying in London. The flat was registered under their names as beneficial joint tenants. In 2000, Mark sold his interest in the flat to John. In 2001, Luke offered to sell his interest to John, who agreed in principle but they did not agree on a price. Luke then died in an accident, leaving his estate equally to Mark and John. A dispute has now arisen over who owns the flat, who is entitled to occupy it, and whether it should be sold.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    EXPRESS CO-OWNERSHIP

    PROBLEM QUESTION SOLVING SAMPLE


    [Type the author name]

    In 1998, Mr. Norton, who had three sons studying in London, decided to buy a flat for
    them to live in. He paid the whole of the purchase price, and the flat was registered in
    their names (Mark, Luke and John) as beneficial joint tenants. In 2000 Mark got
    married, moved out, and sold his interest in the flat to John. In 2001 Luke wrote to
    John offering to sell his interest in the flat to John. John accepted the offer in
    principle but they had still not agreed a price when Luke was killed in a climbing
    accident. Luke left his estate to Mark and John equally.

    Dispute has now arisen between Mr. Norton, Mark and John as to (i) who owns the
    flat, (ii) who is entitled to occupy the flat, and (iii) whether the flat should be sold.

    Discuss.

    TENTATIVE ANSWER:

    On the given fact Mr. Norton (N) purchased the property in 1998 and the property was
    registered in the names of (M), (L) and (J) and they were expressly declared as equitable
    JTs. So according to Goodman V Gallant they are to be considered as Equitable JTs.

    Now the mechanism to the co-ownership stands as follows M, L & J hold the property on
    trust as trustees or (LJT) for themselves as (EJT).

    In 2000 `M’ sold his interest to `J’ in this way severance has occurred by common law
    method which is an act operating upon one’s own share.

    Now the mechanism to the co-ownership is standing as follows:

    M, L and J hold the property on trust as trustees for L & J as equitable JTs (2/3) and for J as
    tenant in common in equity (1/3).

    In 2001 `L’ wrote to J to sale his interest in the property. They agreed in principle but the
    price was yet to be decided between themselves.

    On the given fact common law way of severance will be applicable of which mutual
    agreement and any course of dealings are the two ways.

    Since the `L’ and `J’ did not agree the price of the share, So it can be said that mutual
    agreement of severance will be less appropriate to share JT as no formal agreement was
    made (Williams V Hensman). Alternatively any course of dealing would be the more
    appropriate way upon which JT can be severed since it does not require any agreement but
    negotiation (Burgess V Rawnsley).

    Now we have to see when the severance has occurred as the answer to this question will
    differ upon the timing of the severance.

    M. Taiful Seraj
    Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln’s Inn)
    Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
    [email protected]
    EXPRESS CO-OWNERSHIP
    PROBLEM QUESTION SOLVING SAMPLE
    [Type the author name]

    If no severance occurs before the death of `L’ then right of survivorship will apply. The share
    of the JT will pass on to the remaining JT.

    Now the mechanism is that `M’ and `J’ hold the property on trust for `J’ absolutely.

    If the severance occurs before the death of `L’ then the right of survivorship will not apply
    and the testamentary disposition i.e. Will will get privilege. So the beneficial share of `L’ will
    pass on to `M’ & `J’ equally.

    Now the mechanism is that `M’ and `J’ hold the property on trust as trustees for `M’ (1/6)
    and `J’ (1/3+1/6=1/2) as TC in equally and for `J’ (1/3) as equitable JT.

    Application of TOLATA

    `M’ and `J’ being the trustees of the trust of land own the flat according to S. 6 of TLATA
    1996.

    (M and J being the beneficial or equitable owners of the land are entitled to occupy the land
    according S. 12 of TLATA 1996).

    In order to decide whether the flat should be sold. The court upon receipt of the application
    from the persons having interest in the land will decide (s. 14 of TOLATA 1996). In doing so
    the court will consider some factors set out in s. 15 of TOLATA 1996.

    On the fact the flat was purchased with the view of providing accommodation to the sons
    while they study in London. So in short the flat was purchased for study purpose. So in order
    to consider the purpose of the trust and the intention of creator of the trust the court will see
    that the study purpose behind the trust of property is still continuing. As long as the purpose
    behind the trust of land is continuing the court may not grant any order for sale.

    So in the light of the above fact it can be submitted that the court may not grant any order for
    sale.

    M. Taiful Seraj
    Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln’s Inn)
    Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
    [email protected]

    You might also like