They did not pay proportionally to the purchase. However, it is irrelevant because the facts do not state otherwise. Normally when purchases are done un-proportionally, the parties involved will receive unequal returns on investment. In this case Harry, Ida, Julian, Katrin and Luca did not emphasize on this fact. A transfer usually holds contains a maximum of four trustees on the legal document1. Luca is not on the transfer but he is still a joint tenant. The transfer carries all the names but excludes Luca’s. As per the Law of Property Act 1925, the four trustees are joint tenants and hold the leasehold as per the time indicated in the contract lease.
Harry died and left all of his shares to Julian. This is not enforceable because in joint tenancy when one trustee dies his share goes into the estate that is owned by the trustees precisely those in the joint tenancy3. When his share of equity is given to the other tenants, it is called of the right of survivor ship. The right of survivorship applies to Harry’s case in that after his death, all his legal interests in the estate were automatically passed on to the four remaining joint tenants.
The main reason as to why the share cannot go to Julian is because joint tenancy does not recognize personal interest. Ida sold her shares to Luca. This means that that Ida’s share to the land is common tenancy to Luca. Luca is therefore not just a common tenant but also a joint tenant3. Luca can do anything he wants with a common tenancy so he can sell it or will it. Luca can also resell the share he bought from Ida without having to consort her. The joint tenancy is however-off limits. This type of tenancy can only be interfered with if all parties made a joint decision to sell and share the money. Supposedly, if the tenancy was in common, then Harry’s interest would have been vested even after his death.
Whether Ida and Katrin are entitled to exclude him from living there
Under s 2 sub sections 1 of the trust of land and appointment of trusts act 1996 there must be two trustees to overreach4. Through over reaching both Ida and Katrin and are stopping him from occupying the property. But Ida is no longer a trustee and does not have a legal interest in the property. So TOLATA 1996 may not be applied in this case. If Ida had not sold her shares she would have benefited from being a joint tenant.
This would have stopped Luca from coming to occupy the property. But since Ida is not a trustee and has no equitable interest in the property, Katrin is the only joint tenant hence cannot overreach on her own. And Luca has the right to occupy the property. The only two joint tenants are Luca and Katrin. There have to be two or more trustees barring Luca from occupying the property. Currently, there is only one trustee who is Katrin. A single trustee cannot overreach under TOLATA 1996.
If the dispute cannot be resolved and the flat were to be sold, whether a purchaser would be bound by any equitable interests that may subsist in the land
Equitable interests that are not correctly conveyed by a title deed may still be binding to future purchasers through the principle of constructive notice. However, all parties in this case have correctly conveyed their equitable interests by completing all the necessary paperwork at that time over the land. As a result, if the dispute cannot be resolved and the flat were to be sold, the purchaser would not be bound by any beneficiary interest because of the rule in City of London BS v Flegg6. In this case, having an equitable interest in the land becomes an interest that subsets in reference to the land. The purchaser would not be bound by any beneficiary interest except by the approval of Luca and Katrin. Normally, equitable interest is held by virtue of an equitable title which clearly indicates the Beneficial’s interest in the land.
The court held that the equitable interest of the Fleggs had been overreached. This is because their rights only existed during the sales proceedings. After overreaching managed to detach the equitable interest from the property, there was no longer any beneficial interest in land that can override such interest. The Building Society therefore took free of the Fleggs interest. Adverse possession of property is less common today. This case is a good illustration on how the documentary of ownership of land is not beyond the reach of other interests of the land.
Works Cited
M William, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (3rd, Harvard
R Smith, Property Law: Cases and Materials (5th, Maxwell Publishers, Manchester
2008) 250
A Clarke, Property Law: Commentary and Materials (3rd, Cambridge University
Press, London 2009) 120
U Mattei, Basic Principles of Property Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic
Introduction (1st, Maxwell, Oxford 2005) 15
G Dutfield, Global Intellectual Property Law (2nd, Edward Elgar Publishing, Boston
2005) 134
C Seville, EU Intellectual Property Law and Policy (5th, Edward Elgar Publishing,
London 2010) 95
Gilbert Kodilinye, Commonwealth Caribbean Property Law (5th, Taylor & Francis,
Liverpool 2009) 139
