Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Property Law coursework watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Problem Question:

    Astrid Lees and Fahari Madi were recently appointed executors for Lucy Hodge, the Yorkshire-born artist who achieved fame for her paintings of coastal landscapes. Lucy died in November 2017 and is survived by her three siblings: Matthew, Naomi and Oscar, to whom she left a lifetime legacy each in her will. However the siblings have raised questions with Astrid and Fahari about items of property to which they also claim entitlement.

    At a party to celebrate her Turner prize win in July 2016, Lucy announced ‘I am today giving my entire set of paintings of the North Norfolk coast to my brother Matthew in recognition of the support he has provided during my career’. Lucy’s set of North Norfolk paintings comprises twenty-three pictures which are each individually numbered. Some of these were at the time on temporary display at galleries around the country and remain there now. Lucy sent three of the paintings to Matthew in August 2016, which he now has on display in his house, and another painting is still in Lucy’s Camden workshop. Matthew has recently discovered that Lucy’s will makes reference to at least one of these paintings and has asked Astrid and Fahari to confirm that he is entitled to each of these twenty three pictures.

    During the course of a conversation with Naomi at the Turner prize party, Lucy told her ‘Don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten about you and Oscar. I want you each to have half of my shares in Yorkshire Mills Arts Centre’. The next day Naomi sold her own shares in this company and used the money as a non-refundable deposit for a luxury holiday. After Lucy’s death a share transfer form and her share certificate for 100 shares in the Yorkshire Mills Art Centre were found in an envelope in her Camden workshop. The envelope was addressed to Fahari and attached to the documents inside was a post-it note stating ‘for Naomi and Oscar equally’. None of the other information on the share transfer form was completed. Naomi has asked Astrid and Fahari to confirm when she and Oscar will receive the shares to which they are entitled.

    Following the party Lucy texted Oscar, who was on a gap year in Australia, to let him know of her Turner prize win and that she would celebrate with him on his return. She also sent him a photo of a lottery ticket that she’d bought and told him that if the numbers came up she would keep the money for him until he returned. The following week Lucy was amazed to win the £500 000 jackpot when the numbers on her ticket came up. Oscar has now checked the lottery website and seen that Lucy had the winning ticket that week. He has told Astrid and Fahari that the £500 000 lottery money received by Lucy belongs to him.

    Advise Astrid and Fahari as to the claims by Matthew, Naomi and Oscar. You do not need to deal with the validity of the testamentary dispositions in Lucy’s will.

    Do I discuss implied trust or gifts?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, both. Have you made any kind of attempt to answer the question or are you hoping for a full solution?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    Yes, both. Have you made any kind of attempt to answer the question or are you hoping for a full solution?
    ok thank you! I haven't answered the question yet I'm currently planning it however I'm unsure what applies to each of the siblings
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    Yes, both. Have you made any kind of attempt to answer the question or are you hoping for a full solution?
    What would you include in an essay like this then (just in rough, not a full plan or anything) thanks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Is it right that Matthew is a gift but wouldn’t receive the other remaining paintings.Naomi and Oscar- failed gift, but saved by the virtue of a trustOscar- implied trust, satisfies the 3 certainties so would receive the money?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella123ggg)
    Is it right that Matthew is a gift but wouldn’t receive the other remaining paintings.Naomi and Oscar- failed gift, but saved by the virtue of a trustOscar- implied trust, satisfies the 3 certainties so would receive the money?
    Matthew - I agree

    Naomi - Do you say that a trust arises (i) by virtue of the doctrine in Pennington v Waine; (ii) by virtue of a proprietary estoppel, or (iii) in some other way? It's hard to decide what I think of your answer if I don't know what the answer is.

    Oscar - I don't see any basis on which a trust can be implied here. What is the reason for your conclusion?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: March 22, 2018
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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

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