Joint registered proprietor CICT PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Joint registered proprietor CICT PDF

Description

Joint registered proprietor CICT Joint legal title• No express trust, conflict arises over ownership where there are two or more registered proprietors. Presumption is “equity follows the law” Joint tenants at law are joint tenants beneficially at equity If someone wants to displace the presumption? Onus is on the person seeking to show beneficial ownership is different from legal ownership. The person claiming they have a greater share have to prove this. How can they prove this? Stack v Dowden [2007] “Not a task lightly to be embarked upon” – Lady Hale o Unequal contributions alone are not enough to displace the presumption of equitable joint tenancy. So you cannot state you should have a bigger share because you paid more for the deposit or the mortgage, as that alone won’t be enough. Practical implications? Discourages litigation. Highlight and focus on paras 69-70 (“non-exhaustive list” of factors that could be taken into consideration when trying to displace the presumption) and note the “very unusual” separate finances issue. Jones v Kernott [2011] A subsequent change in relationship and financial circumstances displaced starting point/presumption. Parties had been living apart for some time. Essentially saying they may have initially intended to share a 50/50 split but things changed and so it no

longer reflect that intention. The case relates to a couple who have been apart for a very long period of time where one has assumed huge amounts of financial responsibility without the help of the other. A chance to clarify the law in this area? Not really, but, did clarify the post-Stack debate on “infer” versus “impute” I n f e r : l o o kf o r a n a c t u a l i n t e n t i o no nt h e b a s i so f t h ep a r t i e s ’ c o n d u c t .

I mp u t e : l o o kf o r i n t e n t i o np a r t i e swo u l d h a v eh a di f t h o u g h t a b o u t i t e v e nt h o u g h t h e yd i d n ’ t .

Jones and kernel said when inferring intention you’re looking of the actual intention of the parties on the basis of the conduct, because of this it’s a truer reflection of their intention so this should be the default route. They did in the case acknowledge you could impute In certain circumstances, this involves looking for the intention the parties would’ve had if they thought about it at the time even though they didn’t. Essentially imputing is stating what a reasonable person would have done in your circumstances, this may not have been what you were thinking but it should’ve been. Can only do this where resulting trust criteria apply (mostly commercial) + clear beneficial interest to be shared but impossible to tell proportions. Reform• Law Commission Report 307 (2007): ‒ Proposed reform, but nothing has happened yet. • This is a complex and genuinely difficult area of law.

‒ Law tries to encourage planning, it also tries to respect the choices of the parties. ‒ Encompasses diverse relationships and ideas (i.e. separate finances). ‒ Genuinely vulnerable people involved (historically gendered)....