Analysis of Land Law - Case Study Example

Coursework: Land Law Name Institution Course Date Coursework: Land Law Introduction The English Law has been shaped by the attitude that exists in land. This is the attitude of the people that makes them consider land as theirs. This has been presented as the ‘mine’ attitude.1 Therefore, the English land Law is as a result of the people who declare that they own land. Since land is rich and permanent, owning it creates the feeling of prestige.2 In the case, Ann Richmond has purchased the Glebe Cottage. However, there are other issues that need to be settled. This paper shall present a report on the case based on the land law. The reports shall be drawn from the letters presented specifying the various issues accompanying the case. Miss Ann Richmond has purchased the Glebe Cottage and the title has been taken to the land registry for registration. The Land registration Act was adopted in 2002 and required that owners of land should seek registration of their property.3 This Act had been a progression of the 1925 land registration Act that provided for the registration of all interests in land and all legal estates, together with protecting other equitable interests over land.4 The land registrar has the right to hold the official copy of the title as the title for the new owner is being processed. For this reason, the title of the Glebe Cottage is with the land registry. The degree of annexation brings the presumption that the chattel is attached to the land, the more hard it is to deny this presumption. The case of Holland v Hodgson (1872) is an example where the court used the degree of annexation in ruling.5 Therefore, all the property that is within the Glebe Cottage belongs to the new owner, Miss Richmond. Miss Richmond has complained that some of the facilities that were in the property at the time of purchase have been changed by the previous owner, Andréa Smith. There have been cases where wooden structures have been reported as not being part of the realty. Such cases include Rex v Otley (1830), Wonsborough v Moton (1836) and Wiltshear v Cottrell (1853).6 In a more recent case, Reid v Smith (1905), there was a question of whether a normal dwelling house that was erected on a normal town allotment inside a large town but had not been fastened to the soil could be considered as part of a chattel or part of a freehold.7 The rules and agreement made between people affect the future conduct of the people.8 Such an agreement has brought the issue between Richmond and Frank Gilbert on Gilbert’s right to continue using the footpath in the property. Gilbert had an agreement with Andrea Smith that he would use the footpath for duration of ten years. This provided him with the right to use the footpath. But there seems to be a conflict between the ownership of the property and the contract made by Gilbert in using the footpath in the cottage. In a case by Austerberry v Oldham Corporation (1885), it was stated that the covenant made by two parties and attached to the land does not disappear with the land.9 The Austerberry law was reaffirmed in Rhone v Stephens (1994) by the House of Lords where it was held that only the party that was in agreement could be burdened by the agreement.10 Therefore, Gilbert should be allowed to use the footpath for the period that was stated in the contract. The case of contract or status in land indicated that the contract made by two parties bound them to the terms specified in the contract.11 The case of Street v Mountford (1985) and Harris v Goddard (1983) is used in describing whether land should be handled with status or with the contractual agreement.12 The question in this case was whether issuance of a contract acted as a licence or it was just a contract. This case reaffirmed the ruling in Nielson-Jones v Fedden (1975). The court ruled that the agreement was a license to occupy. Miss Richmond has also presented the agreement made between Enid Brown and Andrea Smith. In the letter dated 21st February 2013, Brown informs Richmond that there was an agreement with Smith to use the paddock in grazing his horse forever. Unfortunately for Richmond, this agreement binds Enid Brown to using the paddock. Any changes would require that the case is handled in court based on change of ownership and requiring that the previous terms be changed. The land law can be used in solving disputes as well as creating a legal background that is settled against the parties that plan for future use of the land.13 Based on the ruling in Street v Mountford (1985); Ashburn Ansalt v Arnold (1989) and Bruton v London Quadrant Housing Trust (1999),14 it was evidnet that an agreement made would bind the land to the terms of the agreement.15 Arguments that could have any rights attached to them could be rejected, as have been in the case of Kay and others v London Borough of Lambeth, Leeds City Council v Price and Lambeth LBC v Kay.16 Another agreement that was signed was that of Smith and Hugo, requiring that Hugo uses the stable block in Glebe Cottage. However, there is no formal agreement as is required of such arrangements. This means that the deed can be terminated by Miss Richmond.17 A note was presented by Miss Richmond on the communication between Charles Smith and Andrea Smith. Charles is the husband to Andrea. However, he was not aware of the move by Andrea to sell the property. This should not worry Miss Richmond since the law recognizes that she is the rightful owner of the property. Additionally, the property had been Andrea’s and not for both of them. There are no matrimonial rights in the ownership of the property. In the case of National Provisional Bank v Ainsworth, the case was resolved based on the fact that Mrs Ainsworth did not have direct right against the bank. However, the property is under Mrs Smith and she feels this does not guarantee Mr. Smith any rights to the property. Based on the cases of Kelln v. Kelln, 30 Va. App. 113, 127-128 (1999) and Howell v. Howell, 31Va. App. 332, 334 (2000), it was stated that property was subject to equitable distribution if the property was owned by both parties.18 Comparing those cases with the ones for Scarberry v. Scarberry, 2009 Va. App. LEXIS 28 (2009) and Johnson v. Johnson, 2006 Va. App. LEXIS 442 (2006), it can be seen that the property should be shared.19 However, this will be subject to the claim by Mr. Smith. Miss Richmond need not worry about the two Smiths. Conclusion From the letters presented, Miss Richmond has to file a case so as to have all the facilities that were initially in the Cottage at the time of purchase returned. She should also settle new agreements with Enid Brown on grazing of the horse. However, Richmond not be troubled by the uncertainty surrounding the marriage of Mr. and Mrs Smith since the outcome will not affect her. For the case of Gilbert and Cavendish, Miss Richmond will have to make do with the agreement they had made till the end of the contracts. Bibliography Card, R., Murdoch & Murdoch, S. 2011, Real Estate Management, USA, Oxford University Press. Chitty, J. & Beale, H. 2012, Chitty on Contracts, London, Sweet and Maxwell. Cooke, E. 2012, Land Law, 2nd Edition, Clarendon Land series, UK, Oxford University Press. Dixon, M., 2012, Modern Land Law, Canada, Routlege. Dowden, M. 2005, Practitioner's Guide to the Land Registration Act 2002: The Unfinished Revolution, London, Taylor and Francis. Goldsmith, B. 1987, ‘Crazier than you and me,’ The New York Magazine, pp. 129. Goo, S. 2002, Sourcebook on Land Law, 3rd Edition, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Ltd, pp. 299. Gray, K. &Gray, S., 2009, Elements of Land Law, 5th.Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hepburn, S. 2001, Australian Principles of Property Law, 2nd edition, London, Cavendish Publishing Limited. House of Lords, 1997, Judgments - Elitestone Ltd. v. Morris and Another, from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldjudgmt/jd970501/elites01.htm [Accessed on March 17th 2013]. Kitzmann, J. & Kitzmann, D. 2010, Classification of Property in Divorce: A Step-By-Step Guide with Cases, Charlotsville, High Street Lawyers. Kodilinye, G. 2000, Commonwealth Caribbean property Law, London, Cavendish Publishing Ltd. Lawessays, 2011, Harris v Goddard (1983) 1 WLR 1203, from: http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/revision-area/land-law/cases/harris-vs-goddard.php. [Accessed March 17, 2013]. Lower, M. 2011, Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust: Opening Pandora's Box, King’s Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 403-413. Maclean et al, 2011, 'Family Justice in Hard Times: Can We Learn from Other Jurisdictions?' Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Vol. 33: 319-340. McFarlane, B., Hopkins, N. & Nield, S. 2012, Land Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, Oxford, Oxford university press. Megarry, R., Harpum, C. & Wade, W. 2012, Megarry& Wade: The Law of Real Property, 8th Edition, London, Sweet and Maxwell. Moffat, G., Bean, G. & Bean, G. 2005, Trusts Law: Text and Materials, 4th Edition, New York, Cambridge University press. Moore, G. 2005, Essential Real Property, Australia, Cavendish Publishing. Oxford University Press, 2013, Sayles: Land Law Concentrate 3e, from: http://global.oup.com/uk/orc/law/land/sayles_concentrate3e/resources/outlines/ch10/. [Accessed March 17th 2013]. Roberts, M. 1997, New Zealand's Family Court - Reflections for the Family Law Act of England and Wales, International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family, Vol. 11, Iss. 2: 246-269. Royle, R. 2003, Briefcase on Land Law, 4th Edition, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Ltd. Swarb, 2012, Austerberry -v- Oldham Corporation; CA 1882, Accessed on March 15, 2013 from . Tee, L. 2013, Land Law: Issues, Debates, Policy, UK, Willan Publishing. Williams, D. 2002, Landlord and Tenant Casebook, Finland, Taylor and Francis. Wu, R. 2012, Land Registration Act 2002 of England: Lessons on Title Registration Reform for China, Tsinghua China Law Review, Vol. 4: 69-84. Read More