\What Interests Are Binding on Stephen - Essay Example

Land law Advise Stephen what interests are binding on him Stephen is the d bona fide ownerof the house as he bought it from Abigail who had the ownership and registration rights of it previously. Based on the Lands Registration Act of 2002 s 1 (1) which incorporates various laws and legal issues concerning land transfer and ownership, once Abigail sold the house (which is an instrument of land according to these land laws and Acts), she transferred all legal rights and liabilities to Stephen the new owner and just as it happened in British American cattle Co v Caribe Farm Industries (1998) 1 WLR 1529, Stephen gets awarded the new certificate of ownership by registrar on transfer of ownership. This certificate and the registration as the new owner of the property award him all the rights of the house (Dowden 4). His interests in this case are therefore beneficial interests since he is the proprietor of the instrument and hence the legal owner. In case of any court cases, the registration and the transfer of the certificate of registration and ownership will be proof enough of his binding interests in the property above all the others and it overrides the interests of all. Once the ownership rights have been transferred to him, it is up to him therefore to decide what to do with rest of the people who were intertwined with Abigail especially Thomas (her father) and Michael (the tenant). Thomas is a trustee of Abigail in the registered land and he therefore has his own overriding interests in the land and its instruments. His overriding interests in that property are brought about by the fact that the registrar did not record his interests or agreements with his daughter when transferring the property from Gareth and this is according to s 78 of the LRA 2002. Thomas assisted Abigail with one fifth of the payment money required to purchase Heavenly Mews and they drafted an express trust. The form of express trust drafted however was not revealed and hence the interest which Thomas has in the instrument is not known. There are different forms of trust which according to English Law may have been drafted in this scenario by the father and daughter. These trusts must have to mention the beneficiary since it is not a charitable trust that Thomas drafted with his daughter. The interest which Thomas may have on the property of Abigail being a trustee may however not be granted or addressed by the courts. This is because according to the Variation of Trusts Act of 1958, the court lacks power to consent trust ascertained to an individual who is suijuris that is the one who is above the age of consent and who is of sound mind like Abigail (Dowden 64). If the case of Savill v Goodall [1993] 1 FLR 755 is to be followed, then Thomas would have claimed his share of the money paid for the house since there was an express trust agreement. The fact that Thomas stayed on and off with his daughter Abigail before she sold the property does not have any effect on the interest according to the act and hence is also not admissible court. The interest therefore remains to be null and void unless Stephen who is the bona fide owner of the property instrument decides to share it or enter into joint tenancy or ownership with him (but it is not a must). The other person who may have an interest on the property once Abigail has sold it is Michael who was a tenant of Abigail for around two months before she sold the house to Stephen. There is no mention of any formality being written that explains the tenancy terms of Michael and Abigail. The case does not state whether the tenancy had commenced or it was to commence in less than three months. In the event that it was to commence in less than three months, then the interest will be considered as override interest. If the tenancy in this case was an actual occupation, Michael will have an interest according to Sch 3 para 2 as in the case Abbey National BS v Cann [1991]. If he has this interest, the Stephen will have to assume the role of a landlord and act like one as in the case of Niazi Services Ltd v Van der Loo [2004]. The justification of a formality in this case is the agreement Michael and Abigail drew to state the terms of the contract. On the other hand, the tenancy may have been equitable in which case it needs to have been protected by a notice from the registrar under section 34 of the LRA 2002. In a scenario where it was a lease, then a formality contract has to be drawn like in AG Securities v Vaughan (1988) 3 WLR 1205. In case it was on lease, then Stephen has to wait for seven years before Michael shifts according to s 27 (2) (b). Richard was the individual whom Abigail had agreed to sell the house to initially in mid-October for a fee of 400,000 pounds. The deal was however to happen in four months’ time. Abigail however sold the house almost immediately after that in November to Stephen. According to the Lands Registration Act, Richard has no interests binding him to that land because his case falls under the category of estates contract (Dowden 55). His case may however hold water if the law of contract is to be admitted in this situation. According to the law of contract, the agreement Richard and Abigail had about the sale of the property may be admissible in court and may lead to Abigail having to pay damages to Richard. All this however will depend on whether the agreement about the property sale was in paper (that is recorded) or there was a witness if the agreement was verbal. If there is proof of the agreement being there, the Richard may choose to sue Abigail for breach of contract without consulting him. If there is no written agreement or a witness in case of a verbal agreement, then Richard loses both ways, that is he cannot sue for the property and he has no interest in the property according to the Land Registration Act. The last person who is directly involved with the property of Abigail and whose interests may want to be clarified is Geraldine who is Abigail’s neighbour and whom had been allowed passage of the property as a short cut to the shopping centre as a personal favour. According to the Land Registration Act which is the reference point of the registration titles, the case of Geraldine has no interests in the property and is even not considered at all. In this case, Abigail had just been altruistic towards her neighbour but in case she just passes without permission or she continues even after Abigail has sold the place, then it can be considered as trespassing as in the case Pye v Graham [2002] or a violation of s 60 of the LRA 2002. Conclusion Since Stephen is the new proprietor of the property according to s 74 (b) of the LRA 2002, he has binding interest and is legally indefeasible just like in the case of Racoon Ltd v Turnbull (1997) AC 158 within the limits that the registrar has provided. Since Stephen is the bona fide owner of the property now and has the major interest which overrides all the other interests, then he has absolute rights over the estate. Work Cited Dowden, Malcolm. Land Registration Act 2002: the unfinished revolution. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 2005. Print. Read More