Land Law in Real Facts - Essay Example

Land Law in Real Facts Background facts Alice, from the age of 16, had worked for Mr. Wilson as his housekeeper and governess for his three children; Bentley, Clarice and Damian and had lived with the family. After the demise of Mr. Wilson, the property was divided equally between his two sons, Bentley and Damian. After marriage, Damian had moved away and had two children. In 1961, Alice and Bentley formed partnership and lived like husband and wife. Bentley had assured that ‘he would do the right thing by her’. In 1970, she had used her inheritance of $500 for a new bathroom. Clarice had died on 2007. Last year, Bentley and Damian too died of accident leaving the property to Damian’s children because Bentley had left his property to his brother and Damian had left his shares of the property to his sons. Now Damian’s sons want the house and evict Alice. As her legal advisor, I would tell her that she has good case under land law principles and the features that support my statements can be enumerated as below: She (Alice) and Bentley had formed a partnership and lived as husband and wife for more than 46 years. She has lived on the property for more than 58 years She has invested her money in the property. She was assured by her partner that ‘he would do the right thing by her’ She was also ensured security by Damian who ‘she should not worry as she would be looked after’. Therefore, as solicitor, I would be present the picture of her legal rights on the property under land law principles and subsequently give my advice as below, detailing rules and application. Rules She has been co-occupant of the house when her partner Bentley and his brother had died and hence has equitable rights to the property. Alice had made the deposit for the house from her personal inheritance and despite not having any legal title to the land, she has legal interest which can be contested in the court. She, as a partner of the demised Bentley, is entitled to a case of proprietary estoppel, under constructive trust, which makes her a strong contender. ‘A constructive trust comes into existence, regardless of any party’s intent, when the law imposes upon a party an obligation to holds specific property for another. The person obligated becomes by force of law a constructive trustee towards the person to whom he owes performance of the obligation’ (Donovan waters, p378). Application Unconscionability and Law of Estoppel The said property, despite the fact that the children of Damian had legally inherited the property from their father, Alice may be considered as strong equity owner of the property. Alice has a strong estate and land interest in the property. This factor becomes significant when considering the question of unconscionability and applying the law of estoppel which primarily operates in the form of constructive trust. Therefore, it is important to know that Under (Law of Property Act 1925 s 199(1)(ii)(a)), the occupant(s) of the property have major interests ‘since it is implicit in Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Boland 1, Midland Bank v Dobson 2and Lloyds Bank v Rosset 3 that the beneficial interest (of the third parties) under this trust precedes the court order’ (Milney, 1997). It is an important consideration that belief involved in proprietary estoppel cases can be in any rights in and over the property. Giving effect to the verbal intention and interest in the land In the last 47 years of her life with her partner Bentley, Alice of assured that ‘he would do the right thing by her’ which was also seconded by Bentley’s brother, Damian and co-owner of the house. The good intentions of the owners expressed verbally and the fact that she had been a resident of the house for more than 47 years, gave her the right to contest the will of Bentley and Damian. As a result of the good intention on the part of her partners and co-owner of the property, she had also invested her inheritance in a new bathroom. It therefore, follows that she has beneficial interest in the property. In Cox v Jones4, the claimant Ms Cox, had made a claim for beneficial interest in various items of property held by the defendant Mr. Jones, including the house that was bought in the defendants name only. The property had undergone several renovation stages, though claimant had not made any financial contribution but she had played major role in the management and coordination of the refurbishment work. She had put on hold her career as barrister to supervise the renovation work of the property. The court had needed to supply the common intention by reference which could be considered ‘fair’ in all circumstances and thus establish that the claimant would have some proprietary interest in the property. The court had ruled that claimant had proprietary interest as she had substantially contributed in the refurbishment work by putting her career on hold. The case is a useful example of establishing Alice’s proprietary interest in the said property which was willed to Damian’s sons after both the registered owners had died. Assessing constructive trust In LeClair v Leclair Estate5, court explicitly stated that ‘It must be emphasized that the constructive trust is remedial in nature. If the Court is asked to grant such a remedy and determines that a declaration of constructive trust is warranted, then the proprietary interest awarded pursuant to that remedy will be deemed to have arisen at the time when the unjust enrichment first occurred’. In Lloyd v Pickering6, the claimant and the defendant had lived together from 1992 to 2002 and both had established a gym business where claimant had contributed financially as well as in its daily operation. There was no express agreement or understanding that the claimant would have any beneficial interest in the business but the court had declared that common interest could be inferred as claimant had contributed towards business and helped in its running. The case is meaningful because it as it establishes that Alice had legal rights under ‘constructive trust’ as in her 46 years old partnership with the one of the co-owners, she was also given verbal assurance that she would be looked after. She had lived in the house for more than 50 years, making a home for Bentley and looking after his sister, Clarice, who had learning disability with no self interest. land registry Act The Land Registry Act 2002 does not affect the position of those who are already in the possession of either lessee, exclusive ownership for a limited period or even the unregistered interests like family members, who may be in occupation of part of the property. Hence, Jerry has full prospect of becoming a rightful owner after 12 years, that too, without much legal hassle and without making any extra payments. Conclusion It can therefore be said that Alice has a strong legal case which can legally establish her right to the said property despite not having any expressed written agreement or understanding from her lifelong partner, who was also a co-owner of the said property. I would, therefore advice her to discuss the matter with Eddie and Freddie (sons of Damian) and try to resolve the issue through mutual agreement. Reference LRR (Land Registration Rule) 2003. Available from: [Accessed 29 October, 2008]. Milne, Patrick. (1997). ‘Proprietary estoppel, purchasers and mortgagees: an alternative approach’. Web JCLI Milne. Available from: [Accessed 29 October, 2008]. Law of Trusts on Canada. Donovan Waters, page 378. Available from: < disinherited.com/articles_remedial.htm> [Accessed 29 October, 2008]. Property Law. Available from: [Accessed 29 October, 2008]. Proprietary Estoppel. Available from: [Accessed 29 October, 2008]. Case References Cox v Jones [2004] EWHC 1486 (Ch) LeClair v Leclair Estate, [May 1998], B.C.C.A Lloyd v Pickering [2004] EWHC 1513 (Ch) Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 Midland Bank v Dobson [1986] 1 FLR 171 Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Boland [1981] AC 487 Read More