Right to an Occupation Fee PDF

Preview

Summary

Rights and obligations of the co-owners inter se that arise from the facts...

Description

Right to an Occupation Fee Where a joint tenant leaves the property and is no longer an occupying co-owner, the law will treat her as choosing to leave and not exercising their legal right to occupy the land (unity of possession). Yet, evidence of an ouster or exclusion of JT from the land may arrive to another conclusion. An ouster occurs where the co-owner is excluded or dispossessed from the property (Re Thurgood; Biviano v Natoli; Callow v Rupchev). There must be a demonstration by a JT of having excluded the non-occupying co-owner – in other words their actions must be inconsistent with the non-occupying co-owner’s enjoyment with the land. E.g. changing the locks and keys On the other hand, if the principle from Callow v Rupchev can be enlivened to show that there has been a breakdown of a ‘domestic’/’matrimonial’ relationship then this would amount to exclusion. The remedy for an ouster situation would be an occupation fee payable by the excluding JT to the non-occupying co-owner that as excluded (Re Thurgood; Biviano v Natoli). Combined with the factors above, without an agreement between the parties indicating otherwise, the non-occupying co-owner will not have a right to a fee. On the facts, JT left because they were “sick and tired of living there”.  this is insufficient to entail exclusion by JT of them....