Express co-ownership

Co-ownership = 2 or more people hold and interest in land at the same time Express co-ownership = when land is conveyed (sold/transferred) → 2 or more people by an express act

Joint Tenancy Joint tenants Hold as ONE UNITY No separate individual shares in land 4 unities to satisfy to be a JTPITTP - PossessionI - InterestT - TimeT- Title Unity of possession: each tenant has an equal right to possession of all of the land Unity of Interest: each tenant has the same interest in the land as the other tenants, for the same length of time. (e.g. a life interest vs a lease) Unity of time: all the tenants receive their interests in the land at the same time Unity of Title: the tenants must receive their interest in the land in the same way from the same document (e.g. deed of sale) The right of survivorshipa.k.a. jus accrescendi if one joint tenant dies, his int will be automatically pass to the other tenants (as they hold 'the whole' together) can't leave his int in his will, nor can it pass under the rule of intestacy (takes precedent over any will) takes effect on the moment of death

Tenancy in Common Only unity of possession applies (no unity of int/ = there can be a larger int) Each tenant holds an individual share in the land (although it hasn't been divided up = "undivided shares in land") The right of survivorship doesn't apply

Express Co-ownership "Express" = land was sold/transferred to the parties expressly Legal title must be held as a joint tenancy  --- s1(6), s34(1), s36(2) Law of Property Act [LPA] 1925 s34 Trustee Act 1925 - the max no. of people who can be on the legal title is 4 (signatures required to sell land) If > 4 people want to buy land... s34(2), s36(1) LPA 1925: a trust is imposed, there'll be a beneficial co-ownership; the extra person will have an equitable title (beneficiary) "beneficial" = rights of enjoyment in land Results in:  All 5 people have the right to the beneficial enjoyment of the land. A trust is imposed, the title of the the land is split into legal title & equitable title A, B, C, D - legal title (joint tenants) + equitable title & interest (beneficiaries) E - trust is imposed, equitable title & interest only A, B, C, D hold the land on trust for all 5 of them - duty to consult E before they can consider selling the land Equitable titlecan be either a JT/TIC Even the 4 unities are met, equity may presume a TIC An express declaration of TIC No express declaration but words of severance (indicated to have their own individual & separate shares)- "equally" ---- Lewen v Dodd (1599)- "between" ---- Lashbrook v Cock (1861)- "share and share alike" ---- Heathe v Heathe (1741) No express declaration, no words of severance BUT equal contribution to the purchase price = JT Unequal shares of purchase price = TIC- the size of each party's share will be in proportion to his respective contribution--------- Lake v Gibson (1729), Bull v Bull (1955) Business partnership even if equal contribution to purchase price - so that the right of survivorship doesn't apply--------- Malayan Credit Ltd v Jack Chia-MPH Ltd. (1986) 2+ people lend money on a mortgage (even if it's lent in equal shares) = TIC--------- Petty v Styward (1632)

Severance Converting a JT → TIC (to avoid right of survivorship)By Statutory Provision s36(2) LPA 1925 - "any tenant...shall give to the other joint tenants a notice in writing...", stating that he wishes to hold his interest as a TIC (i.e. giving notice) The notice has to show an unequivocal intention to sever immediately and not at some time in the future ------- Harris v Goddard (1983): divorce petition requesting the court to distribute the property in a just way. It only asked the court to consider the request at some time in the future. ∴not effective s196(4) LPA 1925 - a notice will be "sufficiently served if it is sent by post in a registered letter" and not returned through the Post Office undelivered. (i.e. serving notice)--------- Re 88 Berkeley Rd NW9 (1971): - 2 ladies owned the house as beneficial JT; - The one who wanted to sever it served a notice by recorded delivery. - Since the other lady was away at the time it was delivered, she signed it herself; - That other lady never saw the notice and died. ❝effect severance had occurred❞ Justice Plowman: no difference btwn serving and giving notice Proving that the notice was left at the last known address of the JTs, still effective even if it wasn't registered; hasn't been received by the intended JTs. --------- s196(3) LPA 1925; Kinch v Bullard (1999)

By Williams v Hensman (1861) A person acting on his own share Mutual agreement Mutual conduct Homicide

A person acting on his own share e.g. Selling = severing the EQ interest from the JT s53(1)(c) LPA 1925 - disposition of an EQ int must be in writing and signed by the person selling/his agent selling one's EQ int to another, the new TIC would be a TIC because 1. he doesn't satisfy the unity of time (didn't receive his int at the same time as the other JTs) and 2. title (didn't receive his int in the same way (the same doc) as the other JTs.

Mutual agreementbetween ALL joint tenants

Mutual conduct1. A course of dealingJTs have behaved as though they were TIC----- Carr v Isard (2006): The two JTs had made their wills, inconsistent with the continuation of the JT However, for there to be an effective severance, the parties have to know the contents of each others' wills to be aware that the other party is leaving their int in a manner inconsistent with the JT.2. Mutual wills

basics, statutory severance

severance