1

[CO OWNERSHIP]
Definition of Co Ownerships. Types of Ownership. Unities of Joint Tenan y. Ri!ht of S"r#i#orship. Si$i%arity of JT an& TC. How JT 'e o$e TC Pro e&"re of se#eran e. Dis "ssion o#er ()*+. Dis "ssion of TO,-T- ()).. Creation of Co ownership [Res"%tin! / Constr" ti#e].

(. Definition of Co Ownerships0
"Co-ownership is ownership over the same property, jointly and at the same time, by several persons each of whom is privately vested with a share of the right of ownership. Co-ownership is called undivided where the right of ownership is not accompanied with a physical division of the property. "Each undivided co-owner has the rights and obligations of an exclusive owner as regards his share. hus, each may create charge or hypothecate his share and his creditors may sei!e it. "Each undivided co owner may ma"e use of the undivided property provided he does not affect its destination or the rights of the other co-owners." Co-ownership can be created either as joint tenancy or as a tenancy in common. # joint tenancy can become a tenancy in common by separation.
$n enancy in Common there being the ratio of land in percentage. %o one can claim the entire land alone but can claim in percentage. &ut in 'oint enancy there is no. #ll of them are the owners of the property. $f any physical separation in the land, then it be amounted as sole ownership. %o demarcation, no sole ownership. here can be no demarcation in case of Co ownership. %o (ne can claim separate entity in case of Co ownership.

*. Types of Ownership. Chara teristi of Tenan y in Co$$on.

# way for two or more people to have e1"a% ownerships, rights and interests in a property. Each owner has the right to leave his or her share of the property to any 'enefi iary upon the owner)s death. Each party *owners+ in a tenancy in common agreement has the right to use the property even if the physical si!e of the sta"e is different. enants in Common is one of the ways to hold title, to own property, by two or more individuals. here is no limit to the number of individuals who can hold title to one piece of real estate. # property held by tenants in common can be owned by two owners or 1,,- owners.

Chara teristi of Joint Tenan y.

/eople who own an asset to!ether $ay own that asset as enants in Common or as 'oint enants. he "ey difference between the two forms of ownerships are the right of the s"r#i#orships to the whole property. hat means that in the case of a joint tenancy if one joint tenant dies, the asset automatically passes to the other joint tenant0s and is not affected by provisions in a wi%%. $n contrast, if the asset is held by two or more parties as tenants in common then each may deal with their separate interest under their will. here are procedures in each state for severing a joint tenancy to convert it into a holding as tenants in common.

2. There are 3 4fo"r5 "nities are re1"irin! pro#in! Joint Tenan y 4JT56
Unity of Possession0
&oth or all tenants must have the right to possess the whole property. %o separation of the property. #ll enjoy the same jointly. %o one claim the land separately even though as percentage. %o 1nity of possession, no Co ownership. 2ainly, 1nity of /ossession is the "ey re3uirements of Co ownership. %o divination. 1nity of possession means that each of the co-owners has an e3ual right to possession of the entire property. $f a joint tenant excludes another joint tenant from the property, this amounts to trespass. Co-owners have a right to joint possession of the title deeds.

Unity of Interest0
&oth or all tenants must have the same interest, same status over the property. his means that the joint tenants must have the same type of interest, and the interest must run for the same duration. 4or example, if 5 and 6 create a joint tenancy, both 5 and 6)s interests must be in fee simple absolute. $f, for example, 5 has a fee simple absolute and 6 has a life estate, there is no unity of interest. 7ame status and same purpose and same characteristic.

Unity of Tit%e0
he interests held by the co-owners must arise out of the same instrument. itle of ownership must come from the same document. $f separate copies were signed by the owners but come from the same documents, could be amount to the same document. $n this regard, all drafts should be the same. he "ey point is that the copies should be printed out from the single document. $n -ntonia&es # 7i%%iers where same printed documents come from the single document were signed by both &oy and 8irl friends. his is not amount to co ownership because the land lord executed . *two+ separate rental agreement.

Unity of Ti$e0
1nity of time means that the interest of both co owners must have vested at the same time - again by a single indenture document. 7hould be in the same time. 7ame time, same paper which is undivided.

3. Ri!ht to S"r#i#orship
9egal heirs of the deceased owner will not get any land0property in case of 'oint enancy *' +. he Co owners will survive his0her respective portion of the property. 4or example: #, & ; C are the co owners in a 'oint enancy *' +. $f # died then & ; C will become the

<
owners of the deceased property, if C dies then & will be the sole owner, as he is alone still alive. he most important distinction between the . *two+ types of tenancies relates to survivorship: in the case of a joint tenancy, the surviving co-owner automatically succeeds to the share of a joint tenant who dies. =ith a tenancy-in-common, the tenant>s share will pass under a will or intestacy on that person)s death. /roperty goes to the survivor not to the legal heirs of the rest of the land. 1ntil we got one single owner, the ' remain. he right of survivorship determines what happens to a certain type of co-owned property after 1 *one+ of its owners dies. 1nder law there are many "inds of coownership, but the right of survivorship is found only in joint tenancy, a contract between two or more parties specifying their simultaneous ownerships of some form of real or personal property such as a house, land, or money. $n all joint tenancies, at the death of one of the joint tenants, ownership of the remaining property passes to the surviving tenants, or successors, who assert the right of survivorship. his is a powerful legal right because it ta"es precedence over other claims upon the property. (riginally a right at Common 9aw, it is recogni!ed by statute in all states. $n order for co-owners of property to reali!e the right of survivorship, the property must be owned in the form of 'oint enancy *' +. 'oint enancy describes an ownership interest in property held by two or more people called tenants. he tenants ac3uire their ownership interest in the property in the same way and at the same time, and each holds an e3ual share. 'oint tenancies are created by deed, will, or other transfer of property. /roperty that is held under a different form of co ownership can be converted into a joint tenancy by amending the title to the property. =hen one of the joint tenants dies, the right of survivorship ta"es effect, passing the deceased tenant)s interest in the property to the other joint tenant or tenants. ?usbands and wives often create joint tenancies for co-ownership of their real property@ under the common law this form of joint tenancy is called a enancy by the Entirety. $t is an attractive legal option because of the right of survivorship. 1pon one spouse)s death, the right of survivorship ta"es precedence over claims on the property by the deceased person)s heirs, beneficiaries, and creditors. he right passes outside probateAthe procedure by which a deceased person)s will is approved, so legal professionals sometimes call joint tenancy a probate avoidance device. he dissolution of a marriage usually ends any subse3uent claim of right of survivorship. # joint tenancy continues as long as more than one joint tenant survives. 1pon the death of one tenant, the shares of the other tenants increase e3ually@ in a sense they absorb the ownership interest of the deceased person. his automatic process continues until only one surviving joint tenant is left@ this survivor becomes the sole owner of the property. he Courts fre3uently hear claims based on the right of survivorship. he surviving joint tenant furnishes proof of the death of the other joint tenant as well as valid legal titles indicating that the relevant real property was held in a joint tenancy. Bocumentary evidence establishing the existence of a joint tenancy is generally re3uired to overcome a challenge to the right of survivorship.

+. How -re Tenants in Co$$on an& Joint Tenants Si$i%ar an& Dissi$i%ar8
enants in Common * C+ hold one unity or re3uirement that is similar to joint tenancy. hat unity is the ri!ht of possession.

a+

enants in Common can be between two or more persons who are related or who are unrelated. ?usbands and wives can hold title as enants in Common. #, & and C can hold title together as tenants in common. $n both ' and C, there must be more than one member as the co owners. (wnership can be held in e3ual shares or une3ual shares. 4or example, # could hold C,D ownership, & .CD and C .CD. Co-tenants have the right to possess the property by one tenant or by all the tenants. # can live in the property by herself or share the property with & and C. %either tenant can exclude the other.

b+ c+

E d+
1pon death, the interest of the deceased co-tenant will pass to the co-tenant)s heirs. $f # died, & would still hold C,D, C would own .CD, but # .CD would pass to whomever she designated in her will.

$t is important to understand that tenancy in common is different than joint tenancy because the transfer of the property to a beneficiary in the event of an owner)s death is different in each case. $n a joint tenancy agreement, the title of the property is passed to the surviving owner, while in a tenancy-in-common agreement, the title can be passed to a beneficiary of the owner)s choosing.

Joint tenan y
'oint tenancy arises when two or more people are buying a property and the shares are undivided and un-demarcated and neither person owns a defined share of the land. his is the most common form of ownership for a husband and wife purchasing a property which will be owned e3ually. here are no shares shown on the title@ therefore if the property is transferred to F5> without any reference to shares, they are 'oint enants.

$n the case of a trust buying a property, the trustees must hold the property as joint tenants. he characteristics of 'oint enancy *' + are:
1. (n the death of one of the owners, the other owner0owners automatically become entitled to get right of the entire land0property. his will happen regardless of any provision the deceased has made for the property in their =ill .. %either owner can mortgage or can transfer their interest of land without the agreement of the other owner, and the joint tenant are called ,e!a% Joint Tenant Tr"steeship. 4orging signature of the other legal owner is not suffice to create mortgage of the legal title as found in 4irst %ational 7ecurities v ?eggarty <. here are circumstances where a joint tenancy can be changed to tenants in common. his may be necessary in the event of 'an9r"pt y of one owner or the brea"down of a relationship.

Tenants in o$$on
his type of tenure allows people to own a property jointly, but in e3ual or une3ual shares such as F5> as to an undivided and un-demarcated 10< share of the entire property and F6> as to an undivided and un-demarcated portion of .0< share of the land0property. enants in common is often used when the buyers are in a de facto relationship, are business partners, friends or are family members buying a property together. he advantage of tenants in common is that a buyer can leave their share in the property under their =ill or desire to another person of their choice. &eing tenants in common also enables the buyers to have their share recorded on the title to the property based on their financial contribution to the purchase of the property. he characteristics of tenants in common are: 1. #ny of the owners can transfer or mortgage their share without the "nowledge of the other owner0s, and the consent of the other owners do not re3uire. .. $f one of the owners dies their share will pass automatically to whomever the deceased owner has provided for in their =ill. $f you decide to buy a property as tenants in common, it is important for each owner to have a =ill in place. 6our =ill should name who you want your share in the property to transfer upon your death.

C
Couples *married, de facto or civil union+ buying a property together should consider very carefully the implications of what type of ownership they re3uire and also the effects under the /roperty *Gelationships+ #ct 1HIJ */G#+. $t may be appropriate to enter into a contracting out agreement under the provisions of the /G# or a property sharing agreement to avoid disputes and clarify both parties> intentions. # property sharing agreement may also state who pays for the outgoings and maintenance, and what is to happen on the sale of the property or if one owner wishes to sell their share in the property.

.. How Can Joint Tenants :e o$e Tenants in Co$$on8 he process of changing is "nown as severance or separation of 'oint enancy. *2artin Bic"son E.11 need to read to "now severance+. 'oint tenancy *' + re3uires E *four+ unities. 1nli"e tenants in common, 'oint enancy involves right of survivorship, meaning the interest held by each tenant will pass to the other upon death. he E *four+ unities necessary to create joint tenancy are: ime: Each owner must receive title on the same time. itle: Each owner must receive title coming from the same deed or document evidencing title. $nterest: Each owner receives the same proportionate and e3ual share of ownership. /ossession: Each owner has the identical right of possession. $f one of the joint tenants sells or conveys the interest created in a joint tenancy to another person, the joint tenancy is bro"en, and a tenancy in common is created. 'oint tenants cannot stop another tenant from brea"ing the joint tenancy. Re1"ire$ents of &isso%#in! Tenants in Co$$on a+ b+ c+ o dissolve the tenancy in common, one or more co-tenants can always buy out the others. he property can be sold and the proceeds distributed e3uitably among the owners. # partition suit can file. his involves going to court and as"ing to sell the property under the order of court and distribute the proceeds amongst the owners. =hen a co-tenant dies, it may see a partition action filed when an heir may want to sell and the other co-tenants do not.

Se tion of ( 4.5 of ,P-; ()*+ : only support the view of 'oint enancy. 9aw only allows 'oint enancy. $f we would li"e to escape from the survivorship in enancy in Common we have to apply e3uity. Court always follows the system of 'oint enancy. $n 'oint tenancy there was no respective share of the land. $n this regard, EK1$ 6 will save us to reduce the harshness of 9#= as the law only contains enancy in 'oint tenancy. E3uity is different rather than law. $n E3uity all legal heirs will get their respective share of the land. $n law there is no way rather than 'oint enancy but in e3uity we can transform 'oint enancy in enancy in Common. <. Pro e&"re of Se#eran e= han!e0 or pro e&"re to transfor$ Joint Tenan y in Tenan y in Co$$on0

J 1. :y stat"tory noti e=written noti e : under 7ection <J*.+ of the 9/# 1H.C

*only notice sent is sufficient to transform ' in C, to the rest of the co owners by one of the owner+. $n this regard, E3uity will get protection. *but there are E *four+ re3uirements i.e. 1+ the notice must be written, .+ to all the co owners, <+ immediate effect *only sending notice is sufficient with registered #B+ and E+ no consents are re3uired of the rest of the owners+.
In [:"r!ess # Rawns%ey] it was held that Lan ora% a!ree$ent between the two joint tenants for one to buy the others share was sufficient to prove an intention by them that the beneficial joint tenancy ought to be severed, even though the agreement was unenforceable because of non compliance with 7ection E, of 9/# 1H.C. he significant of the agreement was not that it bound the parties but that it is severed as an intention of a common intention to severe. In [>in h # :"%%ar&] where =ife desired to separate their property with her husband as they was in 'oint tenancy. #fter sending the letter and before receiving the letter by her husband, her husband died. he severance is effective from the time of sending of letter by the wife, it does not matter whether receiver got the letter not. hough wife tried to hide the letter to get the sole ownership over the land as her husband dies "eeping the property in 'oint enancy.

7everance by notice under 7ection <J*.+ 9aw of /roperty #ct 1H.C - such notice must be given in writing, showing the correct intention and be correctly served in as held in Harris # ?o&&ar& where .
.. &y acting on his0her own share: to show any act so as to show his own share

i.e. one of them "ept mortgage his respect share of land. hat means he having the intention to separate his own share. his is called acting on his own share. $n this regard, no notice was sent to the co owners but "ept his respective share of land to the &an" by way of mortgage. $n this regard, in e3uity all>s respective share will be distributed amongst others. i.e. giving mortgage, charge etc indicates by acting on his own share.
$n M%ielson v 4eddenN it considered what acts may amount to a tenant )acting on his own share). ?e felt that a unilateral declaration made by one of the coowners did not shatter any of the unities and so did not sever the joint tenancy, since )a wholly unconscionable amount of time and trouble) would be wasted by conveyancers in )framing elaborate assignments for the purpose of effecting a severance when all that was re3uired was a simple declaration). #ctual alienation or something e3uivalent to it would be re3uired. %ote that where a joint tenancy is severed, it does not necessarily follow that all coowners now hold as tenants in common. (bviously if there are just two co owners, the result is that when the tenancy is severed, they are both now tenants in common *as one cannot be a joint tenant all by themself+. &ut let)s say there are four people - &ill, &en, 'ac"ie and 'ohn hold a property as joint tenants. 'ac"ie gives her share of the property to &ill. %ow &ill has a dual ownership status. ICD of the property is held by &ill, &en and 'ohn as beneficial joint tenants and .CD is held by &ill as tenant in common.

<. &y 2utual #greement: meeting of the minds amongst the owners of the land. $f all parties are mutually agreed to do so. $t would be written or oral. 2eeting of the minds is amount to the agreement, it does not re3uire as written, oral is suffice. #s all of the owners sit for meeting to distribute their respective portion of the land. his is not written but this is the agreement of the mind. %ot re3uire to tal" or meeting with all the members. (nly meeting with the single member is enough to furnish an agreement. $f discussion fails with fruitful results, no agreement. here must be the mutual conduct, if no mutual conduct there would not be any separation.
E. &y 2utual Conduct: $ntention of getting 7eparation, on the other hand,

behavior and conduct is sufficient to get separation. $f one can prove the mind of separation, then court will do so. 2utual Conduct means intention to separate the property by their behavior. i.e. ?usband and wife "eeping the property in 'oint tenancy showing their separate mind to separate the property. hat means by the act or behaviors, one have to show that the wish to "eep separate their property. &oth or all of the owners have to "eep the same mentality. $f one wishing to "eep separation but another does not want, in this regard, there is not mutual conduct. 2utual conduct should be the same conduct or behavior by all the owners of the property. # course of dealing by the joint tenants showing that their interests should be treated as a tenancy in common rather than a joint tenancy: any course of dealing sufficient to intimate that the interests of all were mutually treated as constituting a tenancy in common: /almer v Gich also found in 8reenfield v 8reenfield. he above mentioned < *three+ facts was scrutini!ed in the famous case namely, Wi%%ia$s # Hens$an where it was set out that 'oint tenancy *' + may be severed by i+ action of a joint tenant on his own share, ii+ mutual agreement and iii+ mutual conduct. @. DISCUSS THE EAAECT OA THE ,-W PROPERTB -CT ()*+0 ?E modern law of co ownership begins with the 1H.C property legislation and those reforms help us to understand why the current law operates. (9# # 1HHJ did not change the basic principles of the 9/# 1H.C regarding co ownership of land and 9/# 1H.C must still be regarded as the source statute.
&efore 1 'anuary 1H.J, it was possi'%e for a Coint tenan y an& a tenan y in o$$on to eDist in 'oth the %e!a% an& e1"ita'%e estate in the %an& . 7o if land was conveyed to # and & as tenants in common, they would be the tenants in common in legal title. #gain, if land were conveyed to 5 and 6 on trust for # and & as tenants in Common, # and & would be tenants in common of the e3uitable title or in e3uity, with the legal title held by 5 and 6. 4rom 1 'anuary 1H.J one change made that was to limit the types of co ownership to two 1+ the joint tenancy and .+ tenancy in common. he first and most significant point is that it has been impossible to create a tenancy in common at law, tenancy in common of the legal title to land cannot exist *7ec. 1*J+ of the 9/# 1H.C+ and only 'oint enancy of the legal title are possible. 4or example: it is not possible to convey the legal title to #, &, C, B as tenants in common because it must operates as a conveyance of the legal title to #, &, C, B as joint tenants. $t is clear to us that a 'oint enancy of a legal title is "n se#era'%e Se 2. 4*5 of ,P- ()*+.

O i.e. #, &, C, B operated as a conveyance to them as a joint tenants of the legal title and they hold this land as trustees on the statutorily imposed trust of land for the Freal> owners. $n this case, the real owners are "nows as the e3uitable owners. (n the other words, they are trustee for themselves. he legal title to the co owned land must be held under joint tenancy, the e3uitable title may be held either as a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common. 7ave that by statute the number of legal joint tenant is limited to E *four+ as per Se tion 234*5 of the ,P- ()*+ but the number of co owners in e3uity is not limited. $f a land is conveyed to more than four people, it is the first four named in the conveyance who became the joint tenant trustees for the land, with all five or six and so on owing in e3uity as either joint tenants or tenants in common.

). DISCUSS THE DIS-D7-NT-?ES OA THE TRUST OA ,-ND -S - DE7ICE AOR

RE?U,-TIN? CO OWNERSHIP0 Se 2; ()). - t; &o trine of on#ersion; the e3uitable owner will not able to get possession of the ownership but preserve the right to ta"e money from selling as found in previous law but that has been abolished by 7ec <. &ut now e3uitable owners have the right to get possession of the land as found in 7ec 1.. Se ; (2; 2 o"t of 3 wants to sell, the subjective land, < may get the compensation from the 1. Se tion (3 of TO,-T- ()). provides that any tr"stee of land, or any person ha#in! an interest in land subject to such a trust may apply to the Court for an (rder. $n deciding whether to order a sale, the Court is directed to have regard to a number of matters as specified in Se tion (+. he following factors considered by the Court in deciding whether to exercise its discretion either under the old Se tion 2E or by Se tion (+ of (9# #, 1HHJ: 1+ whether the property is needed for the maintenance of a matrimonial home or for the home of a stable unmarried couple as held in Jones # Cha%%en!er where .+ whether the property is re3uired in order to provide accommodation for the lives of the co owners or for the survivors as held in Harris # Harris where ; sale was postponed until the completion of the education of one of the co owners as held in Ch"n # Ho where. <+ whether the property is needed for a family home for the children of a relationship that has bro"en down as held in Wi%%ia$s # Wi%%ia$s where E+ whether the property is re3uired in order that a business may continue, the land has been purchase for that purpose as held in :e&son # :e&son where C+ &ut in case of &an"ruptcy the Court will not ta"e into account 7ec 1C in this regard, 7ec <<C*#+ of $nsolvency #ct, 1HOJ will be applicable. 1nder this 7ec the court will give some 1 year time to the Bebtor to repay the time. his section will be only applicable rather than &an". #rt O of EC?G will only be applicable for &an"ruptcy not any other purposes he case &arca v 2ears where the application may be found where there was there was breach of #rt O, by the &an" but 2ortgages v &ell where #rt O goes in favor of the &an", here no breach of #rt O.

(E. CRE-TION OA CO OWNERSHIP 1. Express and .. $mplied

H EDpress0 when e3uitable co ownership is created by means of declaring a rust, it must comply with 7ection C< of /# 1H.C. I$p%ie&0 $n this regard . *two+ concepts need to ta"e into account 1. Gesulting rust */urchase 2oney+ and . Constructive rust. Res"%tin! Tr"st 4P"r hase Foney5 =hen a person contributes to the purchase price of land0property but does not ac3uire legal title to that property, a resulting trust will arise in his favor as held in [Dyer # Dyer] unless the contribution was by way of loan or gift [:ra&'"ry # Hoo%in] where a person provided money to purchase a legal estate in land in the name of another person, and there was no evidence that the purchaser intended to advance a loan or ma"e a gift. $t was therefore assumed that the legal title holder holds the property on resulting trust for the person who provided the funds. 9i"ewise, the legal estate in the name of more than one person but where another not holding the legal estate, contributes the purchase price, then resulting trust could arose as held in :"%% # :"%%. In C"r%ey # Par9es a resulting trust in a property purchased in the name of another would arise once and for all at the date the property was acquired. In the instant case, where there were no findings of fact to support the claimant's contention that payments he had made to the defendant had contributed to the purchase price of a property registered in her name alone, the claimant had not acquired a beneficial interest in the property under a resulting trust. He annot %ai$ to ha#e $a&e a ontri'"tion to the p"r hase pri e at the ti$e of p"r hase. he claimant and defendant had been sharing in a house purchased by the defendant and registered in her sole name. he claimant)s employer re3uired him to move, and offered to ma"e a contribution to the costs of moving house. 1nder that relocation scheme, the employer purchased the property from the defendant and in #pril .,,1, another property was purchased in the defendant)s name alone for around P1CE,,,, and paid for by the net proceeds of the old property, a P1<O,,,, mortgage in the defendant)s sole name, and cash paid by the defendant herself. %o part of the purchase price was paid by the claimant although he received a sum under the relocation scheme and a monthly allowance in respect of the parties) higher monthly mortgage payments. &etween 2ay and %ovember .,,1, the claimant paid the defendant a sum in excess of PH,,,, in six installments to compensate her for the deposit. ?e also paid sums received under the relocation scheme in respect of legal expenses and removal costs into the parties) joint account. he relationship between the parties subse3uently bro"e down and the claimant issued proceedings see"ing a declaration that he and the defendant were beneficially entitled to the property in e3ual shares. he judge found that there was no ade3uate evidence or common intention between the parties from which a constructive trust could be inferred. ?e therefore dismissed the claimant)s claim that the property was held beneficially in e3ual shares. he claimant appealed against that decision. # resulting trust in a property purchased in the name of another would arise once and for all at the date the property was ac3uired. $n the instant case, there were no findings of fact to support the claimant>s view that his
payments of PH,,,, to compensate the defendant for the deposit, and payments in respect of legal expenses or removal costs had contributed to the purchase price of the property. herefore, whilst the judge had been in error in failing to deal with the issue of a resulting trust, he had been entitled to conclude that the claimant had no beneficial interest in the property.

Constr" ti#e Tr"st # constructive trust may be imposed whether there is so$e prior 'ar!ain or a!ree$ent 'etween the %e!a% owner of the property an& so$e other person by which the legal owner has conceded some e3uitable interest to the other person and that person s"ffers &etri$ent in re%ien e "pon his. $f some other agreement is found

1, then it would be ine3uitable to deny the existance e3uitable interest. # primary element of constructive trust is the bargain between the parties and0or sometimes expressed , and0or common intention. ,%oy&s :an9 P,C # Rossett is an important pronouncement by the ?ouse of 9ords where the remedy for Constructive rust is available. In E#es # E#es where 'anet and 7tuart Eves purchased a house in which it was inten&e& 'oth sho"%& %i#e. he house was conveyed into his name alone, and he provided the entirety of the purchase money. ?owever, he told her that if she had been .1 years of age he would have put the house into their joint names, as it was to be their joint home, but that as she was under .1 it would have to be put into his name alone. 7he believed him, but he later admitted that this was an excuse, and that he never intended her to have a share. 7he did a lot of heavy wor" in reliance on the statement@ because the house was in a very bad state, she helped to do it up. ?eld 7tuart Eves *the defendant+ held the legal estate on trust for sale for himself and 'anet, in the proportions of one-3uarter to 'anet and three-3uarters to himself. [,%oy&s :an9 # Rossett] =?EGE 2r. and 2rs. Gossett decided to purchase a farmhouse for PCI,,,,. 2rs. Gossett understood that the entire purchase money was to come out of a family trust fund, the trustees of which insisted that the house be purchased in the husband)s sole name. he house re3uired renovation and it was intended that this should be a joint venture. he vendors allowed 2r. and 2rs. Gossett to enter the property a number of wee"s before completion in order to begin repairs, and render the house habitable . Buring this period 2rs. Gossett spent a lot of time at the house, urging on the builders and attempting to co-ordinate their wor" *until her husband insisted that he alone should give instructions+, going to builders) merchants to obtain material re3uired by the builders, delivering the materials to the site, assisting her husband in planning the renovation and decoration of the house *she was a s"illed painter and decorator+, wallpapering two bedrooms, arranging the insurance of the house, arranging a crime prevention survey, and assisting in arranging the installation of burglar alarms. 2rs. Gossett, 2r. Gossett was unable to fund the purchase and repairs entirely from the trust fund, and obtained an overdraft of P1O,,,, from 9loyds &an" /9C, executing a legal charge on the property in their favor on the same day as completion. ?e later defaulted on the repayments, and the &an" sought possession. 2rs. Gossett claimed a beneficial interest in the property, binding the ban" by virtue of her actual occupation, as an overriding interest under the 9and Gegistration #ct 1H.C, s.I,*1+*g+.

What are o#erri&in! interests8

(verriding interests are interests to which a registered title is subject, even though they do not appear in the register. hey are binding both in the registered proprietor and on a person who ac3uires an interest in the property. $f the Claimant can establish an e3uitable interest over the property Mresulting trust and constructive trustN, he might be able to claim an overriding interest under 7ec I,*1+*g+ of 9and Gegistration 1H.C. (verridding interest binds the prospective purchaser without appearing in the registrar Mbeneficial ownerN. &ut to get right under overriding interest, the beneficial owner have to establish < *three+ things, 1+ the claimant must have a e3uitable interest over the property, .+ the claimant must have a actual possession of the land prior to completion of transaction and <+ if the en3uiry is made by the prospective purchaser and the right is not disclosed then the purchaser will ta"e that right. $n the Court of #ppeal, where 2rs. Gossett won, most of the discussion revolved around whether 2rs. Gossett was in actual occupation when the charge was created, in order to be

11 able to rely upon 7ection I,*1+*g+. he ?ouse of 9ords were able to avoid all discussion of 7ec. I,*1+*g+, simply holding that 2rs. Gossett had no beneficial interest. here was no evidence of any agreement between the parties to share the beneficial interest *first category+, and the wife)s contributions were regarded as de minimis *second category+. 9aw 9ord &ridge sought to define the . *two+ distinct ways in which the courts would recogni!e a beneficial interest in property as a result of o$$on intention, but where one partner did not have legal title to the property. ?e said the interest can be based on "express agreement, arrangement or understanding", or it can be, "where there is no evidence to support a finding of an agreement or an arrangement to share, the court must rely entirely on the conduct of the parties both as the basis from which to infer a common intention to share the property beneficially... in this situation, direct contributions to the purchase price by the partner who is not the legal owner... will readily justify the inference necessary". Therefore; there were two $etho&s for &e$onstratin! o$$on intention for the property to 'e he%& Coint%y G the first 'ein! eDpress intention; an& the other 'ein! thro"!h on&" t G whi h wo"%& 'e fo"n& in the &ire t ontri'"tion of $oney to the p"r hase pri e or to the repay$ent of a $ort!a!e on ernin! the property. ,or& :ri&!e state& that there $"st 'e so$e a!ree$ent; arran!e$ent or "n&erstan&in! 'etween the parties that the property in 1"estion wi%% 'e share& 'enefi ia%%y. S" h an a!ree$ent $ay 'e either eDpress &is "ssions or i$p%ie& 'ar!ain. There $"st 'e eDpress e#i&en e of these &is "ssions. ,or& :ri&!e e$phasiHe& that e#i&en e of s" h &is "ssions $"st 'e %ear an& no #a!"eness a'o"t the &is "ssions. O"r Tr"st ,aw &oes not a%%ow property ri!hts to 'e affe te& 'y te%epathy as he%& in [Sprin!ette # Defoe] where %o actual discussion had ta"en place at all, although there was evidence that the parties assumed that they would share e3ually. Examples of such agreement or understanding can be found in the Case of E#es # E#es where the C%ai$ant ha& 'een 'e%ie#e& that the property is 'e%on!in! to the$ Coint%y tho"!h it ha& #este& Defen&antIs so%e na$e on%y 'e a"se she was "n&er *(. ,or& :ri&!e in Rosset a epts that s" h an interest an raise thro"!h $ort!a!e repay$ents an& it is %ear that J ha& pai& $ort!a!e $oney to the :an9 '"t J pay$ents rather than $ort!a!e i.e. for ho%i&ay eDpenses wo"%& not o"nt for this p"rpose.
If X is unsuccessful by either of the two traditional rules i.e. 1) resulting trust and 2) constructive trust, She may well able to rely on Stack v Dowden and bbott v bbott. !oth of the two cases e"#anded the narrow a##roach as laid down in $loyds !ank %$& v 'ossett.

his is now the leading case on the principles to be adopted in determining the appropriate shares in a property where there is no express declaration of trust. Sta 9 # Dow&en Aa ts0 2r. 7tac" and 2s. Bowden formed a relationship in 1HIC. hey cohabited and had four children together. /rior to 1HH< they lived in a house which had originally been bought by 2s. B at a preferential price from a deceased relative. he house was bought in her name and the purchase price raised in part by a mortgage in her sole name, and the balance from a savings account, also in her sole name. =hen the property was sold in 1HH<, she received the net proceeds of PJJ,J1<. hey then bought a property another property in joint names for P1H,,,,,. PJC,,.C was raised by way of joint mortgage, secured by way of one joint endowment policy and another in 2s B)s sole name. he balance of the purchase price, plus

1. the stamp duty and legal fees *P1.O,O1<+ came from 2s B)s savings account *into which had been paid the net proceeds of the /urves Goad property+. 7ome other facts relating to the property:

2r. 7 paid the mortgage interest and endowment policy premiums on the joint policy. 2s. B paid the endowment premiums on her own policy. $n due course, the mortgage was paid off by way of a series of lump sum payments, as to P.I,,,, by 2r. 7 and P<O,E<C by 2s B. he utility bills were all in 2s. B)s name, although 2r. 7 made some contributions. here were some limited improvements to the property. hroughout their time together, they "ept separate ban" accounts and held separate savings and investments.

he parties separated in (ctober .,,.. 2r. 7 left the property. 2s. B remained in occupation with the children. $n proceedings in the 4amily Court, 2r. 7 agreed to stay away upon 2s. B)s underta"ing to pay him P1,,,, per month to reimburse him for the cost of alternative accommodation. Airst instan e (n an application by 2r. 7 the judge ordered that the property be sold and that the proceeds be divided e3ually. ?e was influenced by the length of the relationship and what he regarded as their "partnership". ?e also ordered that the sum of PH,, per month be paid to 2r. 7 out of the net proceeds of sale from (ctober .,,E onwards. 2s. B appealed to the Court of #ppeal. Co"rt of -ppea% he second property had been transferred by way of the *then+ standard form 9and Gegistry transfer *1H*'/++, and one of the major issues was the effect of the declaration as to the receipt for capital moneys. $n accordance with ?untingford v ?obbs, the court held that in the absence of evidence that the parties had understood its significance, it could not be relied upon in drawing any inference as to their intentions. #ccordingly, the Co# allowed 2s. B)s appeal and ordered that the net proceeds be divided JCD to <CD in her favour. he court also allowed her appeal in respect of the order that she pay compensation to 2r. 7 in respect of his accommodation costs. 2r. 7 appealed to the ?ouse of 9ords. $n the meantime, the property was sold with net proceeds of PICE,<EC. De ision of Ho"se of ,or&s0
Lord Neuberger considered that the dispute was best resolved by resulting trust principles.

=hen a couple are joint owners of the home and jointly liable for the mortgage the arithmetical calculation of how much was paid by each is li"ely to be less important. $t will be easier to draw the inference that they intended that each should contribute as much to the household as they reasonably could and that they would share the eventual benefit or burden e3ually. #t the end of the day, having ta"en all this into account, cases in which the joint legal owners are to be ta"en to have intended that their beneficial interests should be different from their legal interests will be very unusual. De ision in the ase0

1< #fter reviewing the facts, and in particular the various financial aspects of the parties) relationship, &aroness ?ale concluded that this was an unusual case and that 2s. B had discharged the onus of establishing that their beneficial interests were other than C,0C,. 7he affirmed the Court of #ppeal)s finding that 2s. B was entitled to a JCD share.

Jones # >ernott [*EE)]; K"i"$ # Ha$i& ; See re ent De#e%op$ent *E((; those two are the s" essor ase of Sta 9 # Dow&en $"st rea& for !ettin! Essay -nswer "n&er the prin ip%e of Sta 9 # Dow&en. Sta 9 # Dow&en was onfir$e& in [-''ott # -''ott ] where0
S"$$ary Geliance upon the well-"nown passage from 9ord &ridge in 9loyds &an" plc v Gossett M1HH1N, in which he said that direct contributions to the purchase price will readily justify the inference necessary to create a constructive trust, but that it is doubtful whether anything less will do, is no longer appropriate. he law has moved on since then. he court is now entitled to consider the parties) whole course of conduct in determining their shared intentions. his is an important decision of the /rivy Council who gave the leading speeches in 7tac" v Bowden M.,,IN. Aa ts he facts are unremar"able. $n proceedings in #ntigua and &arbuda as to the beneficial ownership of the former matrimonial home *there being no e3uivalent statutory jurisdiction to adjust property interests on divorce+ the ?igh Court held that the property was held jointly and should be sold with the proceeds being divided e3ually *subject to an adjustment to reflect the wife)s ownership of furniture+. he Eastern Caribbean Court of #ppeal allowed the husband)s appeal. he wife appealed to the &oard of the /rivy Council. He%& &aroness ?ale considered that the Court of #ppeal appeared to have attached undue significance to the dictum of 9ord &ridge in 9loyds &an" plc v Gosset, in particular as to what conduct is to be ta"en into account in 3uantifying an ac"nowledged beneficial interest. he law had moved on since then. he parties) whole course of conduct in relation to the property must be ta"en into account in determining their shared intentions as to its ownership. he court was entitled to place particular significance on two features 1+ that where a parent gave financial assistance to a newly-married couple, the usual inference was that this was intended to be a gift to both of them rather than to one alone *2c?ardy ; 7ons *a firm+ v =arren M1HHEN . 49G <<O at <E,@ 2idland &an" plc v Coo"e M1HHCN E #ll EG CJ. at CI,+@ and *.+ that the parties undertoo" a joint liability for the repayment of the mortgage *?yett v 7tanley M.,,EN 1 49G <HE+. he Court of #ppeal ought not to have interfered with the trial judge)s findings as to the beneficial ownership of the matrimonial home. #ppeal allowed. - or&in! to the &e ision of the Ho"se of ,or&s in Sta 9; s"pporte& 'y the Pri#y Co"n i% in -''ott # -''ot 4*EE<5 an& app%ie& 'y the Co"rt of -ppea% in A%ower # :arron; a person $ay esta'%ish a o$$on intention; s"ffi ient to C"stify an& interest 'y $eans of a onstr" ti#e tr"st; on the 'asis of the parties entire course of dealings with each other in relation to the property. In other wor&s; e#en if there is no eDpress pro$ise 4 onstr" ti#e tr"st5 an&=or no pay$ents towar&s the p"r hase pri e; a onstr" ti#e tr"st an raise; if the parties entire re%ationship to ea h other.

1E

Effe t of o owne& %an& "n&er ,P- ()*+

7ection 1 of 9/# 1H.C, 7ince 1st 'anuary 1H.J, the legal estate in case of co owned land must be held on a 'oint enancy but the e3uitable estate can be held either a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common. $n determining how the e3uitable interest is held, the general rule is that two or more persons without the words of severance creates a beneficial joint tenancy. 7ection <J of 9/# 1H.C, %o severance of legal joint tenancy to create a tenancy in common at law is possible. 7everance is only possible e3uity only, severance means conversion in e3uity from a joint tenancy to a tenancy in common. $t is possible to severe the e3uitable joint tenancy without disturbing the joint tenancy of the legal estate. ?owever, in view of the principle of survivorship such severance must be done during the joint tenant>s life time. 7ec <E*.+ the maximum number of rust for 9and is limited to maximum E. 1pon an application under 7ec <, of 9/# 1H.C , under the old regime, the court would loo" for any secondary and collateral purpose to the trust that is any reason to purchase the house other than sale which is called secondary purpose.

Effe t of o owne& %an& "n&er TO,-T- ()).

/rior to 1 'anuary 1HHJ, the court try to find out the existence of secondary purpose. 7ection E of (9# # 1HHJ, prior to the coming into force of the (9# # 1HHJ on 1 'anuary 1HHI, the trustees would have had a duty to sell with a statutory power to postpone sale and unless they all agrees on the postponement the property would have had to have sold. 7ince the coming into force of the 1HHJ #ct, the trustee have a power to sell and a power to postpone sell. 7ection 1E and 1C of (9# # 1HHJ, any person with an interest in property subject to a trust of land can apply to the court for an order. he court can ma"e order for sale or preventing sale. he aim of this provision is to enable the courts to intervene in any dispute regarding to a rust of 9and. 7ec 1C *1+ contains some statements of factors which the courts ta"es into account in ma"ing an order under 7ec 1E. his 7ection prescribes the matter that the Court must ta"e into account in exercising its discretion in determining applications under 7ec 1E. $f 5 had gone to the Court before 1st 'anuary 1HHI, his application would have been under 7ec: <, of 9/# 1H.C and the Court would have loo"ed for any L7econdaryQ or LCollateralQ purpose to the trust. hat is any reason for the p"r hase of the house other than sale. ?ere, they purchased the house for their own living alone. /rior to 1HHI the Court found the existence of a secondary purpose and where that purpose was still alive, in this regard, the court would not grant sale order as held in Jones # Cha%%en!er where in 1HCJ a husband and his wife purchased the remainder of a lease of a dwelling-house of which ten years remained unexpired. he lease was assigned to the husband and wife *who provided the purchase money in e3ual shares+ on trust for sale with power to postpone sale and to hold the proceeds on trust for themselves as joint tenants. he house was intended to be and was used as the matrimonial home. $n 1HCI the wife left the husband who obtained a decree dissolving the marriage on the ground of the wife>s adultery. he wife re-married, and the husband continued to

1C live in the house which they had purchased. he wife applied under the 9aw of /roperty #ct, 1H.C, s <,, for an order that the house should be sold and the proceeds divided e3ually between her and her former husband. $t was held that the wife was entitled to have the house sold because, the purpose for which the house was bought for using as a matrimonial home had ended, and the duty to sell under the trust for sale accordingly prevailed@ moreover, it was not ine3uitable for the wife to want to realise her investment, for that was the only way in which the beneficiaries could derive e3ual benefit from their investment.

SU:JECT ?UIDE P .+; KG*

PRO:,EF0 amongst C owners, all of them would be the e3uitable owner but the first E would be the registered owner of the property. $f 1C persons want to purchase a land, the registration should be furnished to the first E persons. he law will find the name of the first E persons. he rest of the owner will stand as e3uitable owners of the property. $f no information is given or available, joint enancy is presumed in E3uity. #s e3uity follow the law. PRO:,EF0 9loyd>s &an" Case where fact and the /rincipal is that e3uitable contributions indicates 'oint enancy in E3uity where une3ual contributions indicate enancy in Common. ?owever, the intention of the parties would be conclusive as to determine of nature of the co ownership. E3uity will follow which the parties desire. #, &, C will hold the property on Tr"st (the person who hold the legal title is amount to trustee) as 'oint enancy at 9aw for themselves *#, &, C+ and B, E as 'oint enancy in e3uity. ----- # on C for the 10C th of property in e3uity and for &, C, B,E on ' for E0C th of property in e3uity [this point nee& to 'e write &own]. Fain%y ,e!a% Owners are entit%e& as TRUSTEE. $n 'oint tenancy the survivor got the land but in tenancy in common, the legal heirs of the deceased got the ownership of the entire land. Tr"st for Sa%e *the person who is the beneficiary have no title over the property but they can claim money of selling property+ as this is only trust for sale not over the land. TO,-T4Tr"st of ,an& LLLLLLLLL5. Tr"stee is holding the title of the property for the benefit of the beneficiary. %ow the law reforms where beneficiary can hold the right over the property not only with the money to be sold of the property. (9# # has change the previous rules as the beneficiary does not hold the right over the property, but now the beneficiary can hold the right over the property. he beneficiary is much more protected by virtue of this act * (9# #+.

[FORT?-?E -ND :-N>RUPTCB]

%either owner can mortgage or can transfer their interest of land without the agreement of the other owner, and the joint tenant are called ,e!a% Joint Tenant Tr"steeship. 4orging signature of the other legal owner is not suffice to create mortgage of the legal title as found in 4irst %ational 7ecurities v ?eggarty =?EGE $f 5 can show that he has full ownership interest Me3uitable, constructive or resultingN then even if the property is "ept mortgaged by the legal owner, but thereafter, it is possible for him to claim the property against the mortgage. $n this situation overriding interest can be established under 7chedule <, /ara . of the 9G# .,,.. $t would be wise for 5 as e3uitable owner to pay off the mortgage and surplus to Riran.

1J

MONE :; *EE<; KUESTION 20

$n .,,, %ic" and his girl friend: a+ =ho is the ownerS his is a property in the sole name. here is no conveyance of the property in the joint name. $n this regard, 7tac" v Bowden would not apply because it re3uires 'oint %ame to be applied. b+ =ho are the people in e3uity: $n this fact, %ic" is the legal owner as he is registered but %ec" and #nn are the e3uitable owner. 7ince the property is registered in the sole name, in absence of any express declaration as to how the property should be ta"en by the parties in e3uity, we shall consider mechanism of implied or other methods. $mplied terms consists of 1+ Gesulting rust and .+ Common $ntention of the /arties and0or constructive trust $n resulting #nn. rust which is amount to purchase money H,D for %ec" and 1,D for

c+ $f resulting trust fail to go for goal and0or the parties are not satisfied then straight for C(%7 G1C $TE G17 : C(22(% $% E% $(% (G C(%7 G1C $TE G17 : the principal asses of common intention or constructive trust is the intention of the parties as to how the property should be divided. he intention can be interpreted in the following ways: 1+ express, .+ implied and <+ imputed@ $n the instant fact, there are no express words. $mplied in this regard, 9loyds &an" /9C v Gossett suggests only direct contribution and mortgage repayment. he 3uestion is not clear as to how any possible any indirect payment by way of mortgage could be relevant. 7o we need to consider the fact with new direction as laid down in 7tac" v Bowden and it need to fill < *three+ conditions of 7tac"

a+
1pon filling the re3uirements as laid down in 7tac", then straight go for #bbott v #bbott. 2ainly, it need to apply #bbott in case of sole owner but in this regard, the spirit of 7tac" can be applied. Court might also consider the fact that the mortgage was given to the ban" by %ec" without the consent of the others, as the mortgage was given when she was in holiday tour.

KUESTION: $f there are E *four+ rustees who hold the legal and e3uitable interest as '($% E%#% 7, but one of them communicates to the other he would li"e to sell this C(19B constitute severance. &ut if it were to be construed as such, would it merely sever his e3uitable share or would #99 of the trustees hold the beneficial interest as tenants in common as a resultS #%7=EG:
7ince 1 'anuary 1H.J the legal estate cannot be held in tenancy in common: 7ec 1*J+. herefore, if the parties are of full age and capacity and the conveyance has been effectuated by deed: 7ection: C.*1+ 9/# 1H.C, the legal joint tenancy will be held by the first

1I four named on the conveyance: 7ec <E*.+ 9/# 1H.C holding on trust for themselves and any other beneficiaries on a statutory trust of land:s1*1+*1+*a+ (9# # 1HHJ. )E3uity follows the law) and will assume in the absence of words of limitation the existence of a joint tenancy in e3uity if, at the time of ac3uisition, the E *four+ unities of )title), )time interest) and )possession) were in evidence: #8 7ecurities v Taughan M1HOON. he essence of a joint tenancy *' + in e3uity is that each of those beneficially entitled holds in totum tenet et nihil tenet *each holds everything and yet holds nothing+ whereupon the death of one joint tenant ius accrescendi *survivorship+ operates to vest, by operation of law, the totality of the e3uitable beneficial interests belongs to the surviving joint tenant. 7ection <J*.+ 9/# 1H.C preserves the common law relating to the three methods of severance set out by /age-=ood T-C in =illiam v ?ensman M1OJ1N 1 'ohns #;?, namely, act operating upon a joint tenants )share), severance by mutual agreement or by conduct@) section <J*.+ also provides for statutory severance in writing delivered to each of the joint tenants in accordance with section 1HJ 9/# 1H.C. (ther methods of severance such as that by court order, homicide and merger are not here relevant. here are < *three+ issues here. =hat method of severance has been chosen by the trustee to evince his desire to affect a sale of the propertyS $s that effectiveS $f so, what is its effect of the instant caseS $f there has been mutual agreement to sever there is no need for formal writing as long as each of the parties has reached an oral agreement or understanding that the trustee is to sell his share even though it is never, in fact, carried through: &urgess v Gawnsley M1HICN. (n the other hand, there may have been communication in writing to the other trustees of an intention to sell. $f it is in writing under section <J*.+, then such notice to sever must be both immediate and irrevocable: Ge Braper)s Conveyance M1HJHN rather than an intention to sever some time in the future: ?arris v 8oddard M1HO<N and communicated to all of the other joint tenants in writing under 7ection 1HJ 9/# 1H.C. $f severance is effective by one or more of the recogni!ed methods, then its effect is to )sever off) the ali3uot share of the severing trustee into a distinct share which he can alienate, or devolve by will. his does not mean that the joint tenancy for the remainder of the trustees0beneficiaries is relegated to a tenancy in common. 4or the remainder, the joint tenancy remains with its conse3uential right of survivorship. $t is only the severing trustee)s share that is affected by severance. #s for the severing trustee, if the title is registered, an application, together with evidence of severance is made to the 9and Gegistry for entry of the appropropriate restriction in the proprietorship register of the trustees title: section E, *1+ 9G# .,,. which disables the 9and Gegistry under section E1*1+ 9G# .,,. from processing any application for registration until the terms of the restriction have been complied with.

[FETHOD OA WRITIN? IN THE EJ-F]

The question requires consideration of a number of issues concerning co ownership. However, the situation is somewhat complicated by the position of X in relation to the house. In the instant fact, the issue of co ownership are considered first then the position of X need to be evaluated. Furthermore, the question not only involves the general discussions but the consideration of how the proceeds of sale would be distributed. A trust of land arises where there are concurrent interests of land. i.e. where there are more than one person holds the title of the land at the same time. According the persons holding the titles are the co owners. There are two types of co ownerships i.e.

1O oint Tenancy and Tenancy in !ommon. In case of co ownership, it is vital to distinguish between ownership at law and in equity. "ince # anuary #$%&, the legal estate in case of co owned land must be held in a 'oint tenancy, "ec # of the ()A #$%*. In the instant fact, the legal estate is held in a 'oint tenancy by A, +, !. Although the legal estate in co owned land must always be held on a 'oint tenancy but the equitable interest can be held on either 'oint tenancy or a tenancy in common. In determining how the equitable interest is held, the general rule is that where two or more persons without words of severance create a beneficial 'oint tenancy. It appears that X is the sole owner, both at law and in equity. ,n the other hand, A, +, ! are holding the legal title on trust for themselves as beneficial 'oint tenant in equity. There is clearly no conveyance of the property to X and so X has no legal title to it. "everance is clearly relevant in the instant fact. It is possible to severe the equitable 'oint tenancy in the line of the principal of survivorship without distributing the 'oint tenancy of the legal estate. However, in view of the principal of survivorship, such severance must be done during the lifetime of the 'oint tenant-s. ,n the facts, there are no severance here. Title is registered in the name of X along and there is no e.press declaration of trust in writing in favor of /. !learly, at the time of purchase X is the sole owner of the property both at law and in equity. There is no co ownership either e.press or implied and there is no trust of land. In the above circumstances if / is to establish any sort of interest over the land, / must fall bac0 on the line of authority summed up from the House of (ords landmar0 decision in )ettitt v )ettitt and now re modeled by "tac0 v 1owden. +oth of the cases established that it is possible for a non legal owner to claim an equitable ownership interest in someone-s property. The principles are not limited to situations where the couples are married and there need not be any personal relation between the parties. According to the decision of the House of (ords in )ettitt v )ettitt, re modeled by "tac0 v 1owden, supported by the )rivy !ouncil in Abbott v Abbott and applied by the !ourt of Appeal in Flower v +arron, a person may establish a common intention, sufficient to justify and interest by means of a constructive trust , on the basis of the parties entire course of dealings with each other in relation to the property. In other words, even if there is no e.press promise 2constructive trust3 and4or no payments towards the purchase price, a constructive trust can raise, if the parties entire relationship to each other. If X can established her interest in the above mentioned fashions, it is clear that the property is now co owned. All of them contributed equally to the purchase price, and the house was conveyed to them as legal 'oint tenants to hold on trust for sale for themselves as equitable 'oint tenants.

1H (i0ewise, there is no evidence that X had made any sort of written declaration of Trust in /-s favor, so there is not possibility of equitable interest arising in this way. It need to consider the resulting and constructive trust, This may enable X to claim an interest in the property, even though legal title belongs to /, provided that he can bring himself within the principles of 5(loyds +an0 )(! v 6ossett, "tac0 v 1owden and Abbott v Abbott7. There is no scope for X to claim an equitable interest under the resulting trust approach because he had not made any contribution to the purchase price at the time of purchase 5!urley v )ar0es %8897 If the house were sold, how would the proceeds be divided: They intended to ta0e interests in the property proportionate to their contributions. However, this presumption can be rebutted if there is an e.press indication to the contrary. Here such an indication is present. However, what of constructive trust: At any time after acquisition of the house, has X made a promise or assurance that / has relied upon to his detriment ; either e.pressly or arising from the behaviors of the parties, whole course of dealings of each other. !learly, X had made oral promise to /. X stated openly without duress that <this will be your home for the rest of life=. Always use Trust for (and 5"ec &7 of ()A not Trust for "ale. >hen several person purchase then all of then Trust for (and. The aforementioned conclusions about the legal estate and equitable interest can be represented diagrammatically as follows? (egal @state A, +, ! T @quitable Interest A, +, ! T