Corin v Patton Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

CASE BRIEF TEMPLATE Name of Case

Corin v Patton

Citation and Court

(1990) 169 CLR 540 High Court of Australia

Material Facts

Mr and Mrs Patton owned Torrens title land as joint tenants in the Sydney Suburb of Belrose.  Mrs Patton was terminally ill and, on the assumption that she would die before her husband, the land was to pass to him automatically upon her death in accordance with the principle of survivorship that applies to land held in joint tenancy.  Mrs Patton did not want this to happen upon her death she wanted her share of the property to go to her children.  To achieve this result, she wanted to sever the joint tenancy and thereby exclude the operation of the principle of survivorship upon her death.  One way in which a joint tenancy can be severed is if a joint tenant assigns his or her interest in the property to another person.  With this in mind, Mrs Patton executed three documents  The first was a memorandum of transfer of her interest in the property to her brother, Mr Corin.  The transfer was stated as being subject to a mortgage to the State Bank of New South Wales, which held the relevant certificate of title.  The second document was trust deed by which Mr Corin declared that he held the interest transferred to himself by Mrs Patton on trust for her.  The third document was a will by which Mrs Patton left her estate to her children in equal shares.  At the time of her death the transfer to Mr Corin had not been registered, nor had any steps been taken to have the state bank produce the certificate of title to enable the transfer to be registered. Whether Mrs Patton had assigned, either at law or in equity, her interest in the property to Mr Corin before she died. If she had, the joint tenancy with Mr Patton would have been severed, with the consequence that Mrs Patton’s interest in the property would have passed to her children in accordance with the terms of her will. If Mrs Patton had not assigned her interest in the Property before her death, the joint tenancy would not have been severed and Mr Patton would become the sole owner of the property in accordance with the principle of survivorship. S 41 RPA (NSW Milroy v Lord (1862) 45 ER 1185 Anning v Anning (1907) 4 CLR 1049 There had not been a legal assignment of the property to Mr COrin, because the transfer had not been registered in accordance with the requirements of s 41 of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)

Legal Issue

Relevant Law Application of Law to the Facts Conclusion



The High Court unanimously ruled that there had been no assignment, that the joint tenancy had not been severed, and that Mr Patton becoame the sole owner of the property upon the death of his wife. no legal assignment b/c no registration (TT) - no equitable assignment on any of views set out in Anning v Anning - no production of title documents: Mrs Patten had not done all that was required of her for E assignment....