under a joint tenancy what happens if one of the joint tenants brings another person

Watch this thread
Efron
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Say if their is a joint tenancy of around 4 people, say if one of the joint tenants says to a 3rd party that they can live in the property forever, are they allowed to do that whether it conflicts with the consensus of the other joint tenants. Is there any case law backing this up.
0
reply
Bitesizelaw
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by Efron)
Say if their is a joint tenancy of around 4 people, say if one of the joint tenants says to a 3rd party that they can live in the property forever, are they allowed to do that whether it conflicts with the consensus of the other joint tenants. Is there any case law backing this up.
Hi Efron,

You seem to be struggling. Can I suggest that you look at your lecture and seminar notes in the first instance and then read the relevant sections from your module's recommended textbook. If you don't like the recommended text; try a different one. Lots of good quality academic books are available on-line, and most uni libraries subscribe to them. If you are really desperate; try Google as a starting point . Property law is a tricky subject and many students struggle with it at first. However, it is important to try to work through the problem yourself to learn effectively.

If you want to get more responses to your posts; follow the forum ground rules.

Personally, I will not usually respond to posts where the student simply asks for 'advice' or posts a question without indicating that they have made an attempt to find out the answer for themselves.

Good luck with it

Amanda a.k.a. BiteSizeLaw (private property law tutor)
Last edited by Bitesizelaw; 2 years ago
0
reply
Efron
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by Bitesizelaw)
Hi Efron,

You seem to be struggling. Can I suggest that you look at your lecture and seminar notes in the first instance and then read the relevant sections from your module's recommended textbook. If you don't like the recommended text; try a different one. Lots of good quality academic books are available on-line, and most uni libraries subscribe to them. If you are really desperate; try Google as a starting point . Property law is a tricky subject and many students struggle with it at first. However, it is important to try to work through the problem yourself to learn effectively.

If you want to get more responses to your posts; follow the forum ground rules. The most important part is set out below

'What should I definitely not do?

'Please don't expect us to actually do your homework for you. By trying to come up with your own answer first gives others a starting point to see how you have attempted the question and maybe see things in a slightly different way'.


Personally, I will not usually respond to posts where the student simply asks for 'advice' or posts a question without indicating that they have made an attempt to find out the answer for themselves.

Good luck with it

Amanda a.k.a. BiteSizeLaw (private property law tutor)
Madam could you kindly just clear this up for me, because I'm really really confused.

If at law only a joint tenancy can exist, what does that mean for a tenant in common, say if five people buy a house as a tenant in common, seeing as a TC cannot exist in law does that mean that none of those five people have legal title to the property, if so then how is the TC gonna be held on trust for the beneficiarys of the property if there is no legal title.

For example I know that a joint tenancy in law and equity, means the trustee and benificaries are both the trustees and beneficiaries, and a joint tenancy equity, means that for example 1 of them holds it on trust, but their both beneficiaries, hence their joint tenants in equity together, only one of them holds the legal title.

In brief could you kindly explain in the simplest form, the tenancy in common in this instance, if it only exists in equity what does that mean, does it mean that it only relates to unregistered land, or does it mean that all of them hold the equitable shares separately but one or two of them hold the legal title which is separate from the legal title, what does it mean?

I would be forever grateful if you kindly provide me with clarity because the books seem to not explain these simple differences and go straight to the meat of the discussions instead.

Thank you very much
0
reply
Bitesizelaw
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
Here is a link to YouTube video. I did this as a revision aid; but it may be useful.

sorry- I can't answer all your questions as it would take too long. I repeat my advice to revisit your lecture and seminar notes and work up to the textbooks.

Here are just a few points:

The law relating to co-ownership applies to both registered and unregistered title.

When title is transferred or conveyed to more than one owner, the transfer will name the legal owners. As you state; they are usually also the equitable owners. Most couples who buy a house together will be both legal owners (as joint tenants) and equitable owners (as either JTs or TCs). However you could have a situation where A and B are the legal owners with A,B,C and D as the beneficial (i.e. equitable) owners. The transfer should always state how the beneficial ownership is held i.e. a JT or a TC.

I don't know how to explain how a TC only exists in equity - it just does; due to the LPA 1925! The reason this is the case is to make the process of buying land simpler. The purchaser does not have to worry about the equitable ownership if they pay the money to 2 or more legal owners (i.e. the trustees) - a.k.a overreaching.

BiteSizeLaw
Last edited by Bitesizelaw; 2 years ago
0
reply
Malik shehryar
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Here the unity of interest and possession would be affected in result there would be no joiny taenacy
0
reply
Lawschoolhack
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Malik shehryar)
Here the unity of interest and possession would be affected in result there would be no joiny taenacy
Only if there is a transfer of the equitable interest to the new occupier. From the original brief facts provided this doesn't seem to be the case.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

Does school Maths prepare people well enough for the future?

Yes, it gives everyone a good foundation for any future path (41)
31.78%
Somewhat, if your future involves maths/STEM (60)
46.51%
No, it doesn't teach enough practical life skills (27)
20.93%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (1)
0.78%

Watched Threads

View All