CASE NOTE W v Boland PDF

Preview

Summary

case note on W v Boland...

Description

Case note: William & Glyn Bank v Boland Facts of the case: - Husband was the sole registered owner of a legal estate, only his name was registered so only he owned the property. - However, the wife had contributed to the price of the legal estate. - Husband took out a mortgage against the house to fund his business and defaulted on the payments. - Bank sought possession of the house and were unaware of the wife’s contribution. Legal Issues:  ‘Whether the legal and registered mortgage takes effect against the matrimonial home, or whether the wives' beneficial interest has priority over it.’ Whether the bank has priority over the wife’s interest.  ‘The first question is whether the wife is a "person in actual occupation" and if so, whether her right as a tenant in common in equity is a right protected by this provision.’ Was the wife in actual occupation and is her right protected? LRA 1925 s70 (1) (g).  ‘This brings me to the second question, which is whether such rights as a spouse has under a trust for sale are capable of recognition as overriding interests - a question to my mind of some difficulty. The argument against this is based upon the structure of the Land Registration Act 1925 and upon specific provisions in it.’ Is the wife’s interest capable of being overriding? Decision:  Bank did not have priority over the wife’s interest because  The wife was in actual occupation and her right was protected – applied plain English meaning, her interest was overriding. Principle reasons for the decision:  The husband was a beneficiary for himself and his wife, capital money had to be paid to 2 people? They had constructive notice.  Interest was overriding because she was in actual occupation – ordinary plain English was applied and interpretated here. Ratio Decidendi?  Plain English was applied – wife’s occupation, dictionary definition.  LPA 1925? OR LRA 1925? What is the significance of the case?  LRA recognises the rights of spouses in actual occupation?  Recognises women/spouses as having their own rights, it reset the scales so someone would not be classed as ‘just his wife’ for example. Do I agree with the decision?

Williams & Glyn v Boland

Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard

Hodgson v. Marks = shared occupation

Williams & Glyn v Boland

Thomas v Clydescale Bank = clear visible signs of occupation = no enquiries

RL Rule = S27/28/29/132 of the LRA 2002 = if a disposition (transfer or a registered estate is registrable (27) = and it is made for valuable consideration (ss29 & 132) = and it has been completed by registration (29) then it takes priority over any interest affecting the state immediately before the disposition whose priority is not protected at the time of registration (29). Georges transfer is registrable, he has provided consideration through money and has registered it. A) …. 1) Is Ben’s interest registered? = BIUT = Can it be? BIUT - These MAY be protected by registration, they are suppose to be a mirror but aren’t so it is excluded under s.33 = DOES NOT APPLY TO REGISTERED LAND. LRA 2002 Sch.3 para 2 = proprietry interest, be in actual occupation at the time of disposition then the interest is protected. Bens interest would be protected under this because he is in actual occupation in the cottage unless he didn’t state his interest when George asked? Para 2b. 2) Colin = estate contract = lease Can be registered, is it? It is a deed so would assume it is, there is no valuable consideration been made? Would not be protected? Georges purchase of the freehold would take priority over Colin’s option to purchase. 3) Debbie = equitable easement (right of way) An easement can be registered but it was not it was never formalised, Debbie has provided no valuable consideration. Georges purchase of the farm would take priority over Debbie’s equitable easement, as a result it would not be binding. 4) Eric = License License = equitable = restrictive covenant cannot be protected by registration of a notice. Para 2c = an interest which is not obviously discoverable will not override a registered disposition? B) This would make it a beneficial interest under a trust = pay capital to 2 or more trustees but this is REGISTERED LAND AND BIUT DO NOT APPLY!! Advice wouldn’t change apart from Ben’s BIUT could be taken away if capital was paid to 2 or more people. C) It is not for agricultural labourers? It is for holiday makers? Wouldn’t be using it for agricultural labourers?...