Land Law - Express Trusts

Where there are no words of severance, then equity makes presumptions:
A tenancy in common will be presumed where it states, 'purchase of unequal shares'

A tenancy in common will also be presumed where the parties contribute an unequal share to the purchase price, the size of each parties share will be in proportion to their contribution

Where there are no words of severance, then equity makes presumptions:
A tenancy in common will be presumed where it is a commercial relationship

Where there are no words of severance, then equity makes presumptions:
A tenancy in common will be presumed where money is lent on mortgage by two or more persons, they are presumed to hold the estate which they receive by way of security as tenants in common

Severing joint tenancy:
in which it was held that the notice had been validly served within s.196(3), having been posted to and delivered at H's last known place of abode, even though it had not come to his attention. The fact that W picked up the notice and destroyed it did not invalidate the service. There was nothing in s.36(2) which required a court to inquire into the sender's state of mind and it made no difference that, at the time of service, W no longer wished to sever the tenancy. However, W herself would not have been entitled to claim as against H that the notice had been validly served where she had taken steps to deliberately conceal the notice from him.

Severing joint tenancy in equity:
i. Any act of any one of the parties operating on his own share, e.g. a sale of the joint tenants beneficial interest, or the bankruptcy of a joint tenant. A sale is deemed to take place once there is a contract to sell
ii. Mutual agreement, in Burgess v Rawnsley an oral agreement by one joint tenant to purchase the share of the other operated to sever even though the contract was not specifically enforceable as there was nothing in writing
iii. Any other course of dealing which shows that the interests of all were mutually treated as constituting a tenancy in common, Sir Pennycock stated in Burgess that it includes negotiations which although not resulting in an agreement, indicate a common intention to sever
iv. Forfeiture, if one joint tenant kills another, the right of survivorship should not operate as this would allow a murderer to benefit from his act

Trustees are bound by the fiduciary duties of trustees when exercising their functions, ‘they must put the interests of the beneficiaries first’

The family home was owned jointly by the husband and wife in law, but the wife only had a 10% beneficial interest. H forged W’s signature on a mortgage and then left W. She remained in the house for 10 years after H stopped making mortgage payments. The mortgage debt was now £300,000 and a sale would be ordered, as a powerful consideration was whether the creditor is receiving proper recompense for being kept out of his money. This was clearly not the case

Severing joint tenancy in equity by mutual agreement:
an oral agreement by one joint tenant of a house to the other joint tenant will nevertheless serve to sever the joint tenancy. M and F agreed orally that F would sell M her share, M died and F claimed the house was hers by survivorship. The agreement to sell had operated to sever the joint tenancy, the house as no F’s by survivorship, and she held it on trust for M’s estate

S.15 criteria to consider in a s.14 order:
The marriage had ended and there were no children, the court held that the purpose for the trust had ended and therefore ordered a sale of the property

S.15 criteria to consider in a s.14 order:
The relationship had ended but the property was needed as a home for the woman and children of the relationship. The court did not order a sale in the interest of the minor’s welfare

S.15 criteria to consider in a s.14 order:
The court refused an application for sale, the purposes for the trust continued for the remaining co-owners. Neighbours purchased a field in order to preserve their view. One neighbour wanted to sell. The trust continued for the other three so the court refused the sale. The purpose of the trust must have ended for the majority.

Where the four unities are satisfied and there is an express declaration that the parties hold the property as joint tenants, then this express declaration is considered conclusive.