Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What are the implications if one joint tenant sells the property without the consent Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    of the other? will the other joint tenant have any way of getting it back and will the beneficiary prior to the sale have any claims? Where would the new proprietor stand?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Read the parts of the Law of Property Act regarding overreaching. If there is more than one joint tenant the purchaser needs to buy from two to overreach the others. If the other equitable owners are overreached they will have a claim to the sale proceeds.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Read the parts of the Law of Property Act regarding overreaching. If there is more than one joint tenant the purchaser needs to buy from two to overreach the others. If the other equitable owners are overreached they will have a claim to the sale proceeds.
    I'm aware of that. I was more after the implications. if one JT agrees to sell without the consent of the other, and the new purchaser is innocent, where does each party stand? thank you for replying
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If he is a JT at law, purchaser has not met the requirements of s2 LPA1925 and is bound by the third party.

    If he is a JT in equity only, s2 LPA is met and the third party gets overreached unless the third party's rights come within one of the exceptions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    If he is a JT at law, purchaser has not met the requirements of s2 LPA1925 and is bound by the third party.

    If he is a JT in equity only, s2 LPA is met and the third party gets overreached unless the third party's rights come within one of the exceptions.
    supposing he was a JT at law - what do you mean he is bound by the 3rd party?. also, why is it that the purchaser has not met the req. surely it is the sellers (the other JTs) fault? (I think im missing the obvious here, sorry for my stupidity!)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I mean the third party can enforce his property rights against the purchaser. He doesn't have to sue the other JT for a share of the proceeds.

    It is the seller's fault because he hasn't met the requirements because s2 which stipulates that, where property has more than one legal owner, you have to pay money to at least two to overreach the interests of others.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I mean the third party can enforce his property rights against the purchaser. He doesn't have to sue the other JT for a share of the proceeds.

    It is the seller's fault because he hasn't met the requirements because s2 which stipulates that, where property has more than one legal owner, you have to pay money to at least two to overreach the interests of others.
    thanks one last question, will the purchaser be able to make any claims against the JT who sold him the property to get his money back, if that JT has absconded? is it just a simple case of trying to sue that JT responsible for his loss or is there some legislation which details remedies?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    In theory the second JT would simply make a property claim for his money against the first JT. Of course, a legal claim is pretty useless if you can't locate the person and you can't locate their assets. People often abscond or go bankrupt in problem questions because the examiners are trying to get you to consider the particular issue of whether the purchaser overreaches the second JT.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Read the parts of the Law of Property Act regarding overreaching. If there is more than one joint tenant the purchaser needs to buy from two to overreach the others. If the other equitable owners are overreached they will have a claim to the sale proceeds.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    If he is a JT at law, purchaser has not met the requirements of s2 LPA1925 and is bound by the third party.

    If he is a JT in equity only, s2 LPA is met and the third party gets overreached unless the third party's rights come within one of the exceptions.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I mean the third party can enforce his property rights against the purchaser. He doesn't have to sue the other JT for a share of the proceeds.

    It is the seller's fault because he hasn't met the requirements because s2 which stipulates that, where property has more than one legal owner, you have to pay money to at least two to overreach the interests of others.
    What does this mean in plain English? I have no idea what you are talking about.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.R)
    What does this mean in plain English? I have no idea what you are talking about.
    Land law is technical.

    Deal with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehforum)
    Land law is technical.

    Deal with it.
    The battlefield is over there my dear internet warrior.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.R)
    What does this mean in plain English? I have no idea what you are talking about.
    What it means are that the answers are not very good.

    I don't normally provide model answers to what may be essay questions but this one seems to have got off on the wrong foot badly.



    Legal Joint Tenancy


    What do we mean by sell? Do we mean enter into a contract or purport to transfer/convey.

    Legal estate vested in V1 and V2. V1 contracts to sell to P, V2 unaware. Assume traditional contract with investigation of title after contract. P discovers problem before completion. V1 cannot give good title. P can rescind. Since abolition of rule in Bain v Fothergill, P can also sue for damages. Alternatively P can affirm, require V1 to assign his equitable interest (assuming he has one), and sue for damages. Note that entry into the contract will sever any joint tenancy in equity.

    Legal estate vested in V1 and V2. V1 purports to convey/transfer property to P forging V2's signature. Conveyance/transfer not effective to pass legal estate, but is effective to pass V1's equitable interest if he has one and will sever any joint tenancy in equity. P's remedies to rescind and sue for damages for deceit or affirm and sue for damages for deceit.

    Equitable Joint Tenancy


    Legal estate vested in V1. V1 and V2 own as equitable joint tenants. This should be protected by restriction on register or memorandum on the last conveyance but may not be. Let us assume it is. V1 cannot pass a good title without appointing a second trustee of the legal estate but a trust can't fail for want of a trustee so P can seek an order from the court that V1 or the court appoints a second trustee (V3) of the legal estate to receive the sale proceeds and convey/transfer the property. V2 overreached unless sale between V1 and P fraudulent. Any claims V2 has relating to the sale proceeds carries on against V1 and V3.

    Assume no protection on the register/title deeds. Is V2 in actual occupation? If not, V1 transfers/conveys and passes good title to P as P doesn't have an overriding interest. Any claims V2 has, lie against V1. If V2 is in actual occupation, V1 passes title to P subject to V2's rights whatever they are (including the right under section 12 of TOLATA). Whether P can rescind or sue depends on the terms of the contract with V1 and whether P was deemed to have knowledge of V2 or whether any misrepresentation was made.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    What it means are that the answers are not very good.

    I don't normally provide model answers to what may be essay questions but this one seems to have got off on the wrong foot badly.



    Legal Joint Tenancy


    What do we mean by sell? Do we mean enter into a contract or purport to transfer/convey.

    Legal estate vested in V1 and V2. V1 contracts to sell to P, V2 unaware. Assume traditional contract with investigation of title after contract. P discovers problem before completion. V1 cannot give good title. P can rescind. Since abolition of rule in Bain v Fothergill, P can also sue for damages. Alternatively P can affirm, require V1 to assign his equitable interest (assuming he has one), and sue for damages. Note that entry into the contract will sever any joint tenancy in equity.

    Legal estate vested in V1 and V2. V1 purports to convey/transfer property to P forging V2's signature. Conveyance/transfer not effective to pass legal estate, but is effective to pass V1's equitable interest if he has one and will sever any joint tenancy in equity. P's remedies to rescind and sue for damages for deceit or affirm and sue for damages for deceit.

    Equitable Joint Tenancy


    Legal estate vested in V1. V1 and V2 own as equitable joint tenants. This should be protected by restriction on register or memorandum on the last conveyance but may not be. Let us assume it is. V1 cannot pass a good title without appointing a second trustee of the legal estate but a trust can't fail for want of a trustee so P can seek an order from the court that V1 or the court appoints a second trustee (V3) of the legal estate to receive the sale proceeds and convey/transfer the property. V2 overreached unless sale between V1 and P fraudulent. Any claims V2 has relating to the sale proceeds carries on against V1 and V3.

    Assume no protection on the register/title deeds. Is V2 in actual occupation? If not, V1 transfers/conveys and passes good title to P as P doesn't have an overriding interest. Any claims V2 has, lie against V1. If V2 is in actual occupation, V1 passes title to P subject to V2's rights whatever they are (including the right under section 12 of TOLATA). Whether P can rescind or sue depends on the terms of the contract with V1 and whether P was deemed to have knowledge of V2 or whether any misrepresentation was made.
    Oh man. I thought chemistry was hard.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.R)
    Oh man. I thought chemistry was hard.
    If you're not a law student, then it's unlikely many of the posts here make sense. They assume a basic knowledge which must lay persons don't have. I wouldn't understand a chemistry help question, but I don't try to! Land law is one of the more technical compulsory subjects, and in spite of its apparently concrete subject matter is less familiar than crime or contract. Most people know, or think they know, what crimes and contracts are. Trusts and the land register are more alien unless you've bought a house.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    If you're not a law student, then it's unlikely many of the posts here make sense. They assume a basic knowledge which must lay persons don't have. I wouldn't understand a chemistry help question, but I don't try to! Land law is one of the more technical compulsory subjects, and in spite of its apparently concrete subject matter is less familiar than crime or contract. Most people know, or think they know, what crimes and contracts are. Trusts and the land register are more alien unless you've bought a house.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I didn't know Law was technical. I learnt something new.

    Haha funny coincidence, I can see a copy of Blue Train staring at me from my shelf and from your avatar.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.R)
    I didn't know Law was technical. I learnt something new.

    Haha funny coincidence, I can see a copy of Blue Train staring at me from my shelf and from your avatar.
    Good album. Not my favourite of his, but a good 'un nonetheless. I think Curtis Fuller's a bit out of his depth on it compared to Lee Morgan and Trane, but what can you do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    Good album. Not my favourite of his, but a good 'un nonetheless. I think Curtis Fuller's a bit out of his depth on it compared to Lee Morgan and Trane, but what can you do?
    You know you are right. It's a good album but it's a bit too overrated. It's not one of the top Coltrane albums by a long stretch. Perhaps it's because it's his more accessible stuff?

    I got 'Return Of The 5000 lb Man' by Rahsaan Roland Kirk for Christmas
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.