to buy Riverview for them all to live in. They each contributed to unequal amounts to the purchase price and the property was conveyed to Abe, Beth, Cath, and in trust for all five of them as beneficial joint tenants.
In 2010 Abe sent a postcard to the others saying ”’As I am going to be married I need to sell mu interest in Riverview. ” After he posted thhe postcard addressed to Riverview , Abe received a ttext from his fiancee ennding their relationship. The next day he intercepted a postman at the gate and tote up the psotcard.
A few months later Beth;s daughter Fern moved into Riverview. Fern had previously lived with her father but her parents deciided that Rivwerview’s location was better suited to her psychological development
In 2011 Cath wished to sell her interest in Riverview to help her finance a trip around the world. She called the others and meeting to ask if they would like to buy her interest. After discussing the idea with they told Cath they would buy her interest but could only afford to pay 60 000. Cath started on her trip without finally agreeing a price with the others. Before she left she made a will in which she left her interes tin Riverview to Don. Tragically Don was killed in a climibing accident.
Last year Edwain bought a second home in the Lake District. In order to fund its purchase and without telling the others she mortgaged her interest in Riverview to Ulswater Bank. In January 2014 Edwina fell behind in payments after she lost her job
advise Ulswater bank
a…………. what is the division of the beneficial ownership.
b………. whether it is likely to succeed if it seeks to possess Riverview too have it sold
The people started oout as joint tenants. This means the amounts they paid have no relavance. They own it all in common. The four unitieis are present. PITT. possession, interest, time and title. But there are five of them. Usually there can be a maximum of four people with this. I am flummoxed.
Abe intended to sever the joint tenancy. But did this operate? It was about intention. The message did not get through but it is likely that it still operates. In that case there are only four joint tenants holding a trust of land.
If it did not operate then the ius acrescendi means that the remaaining four will own the land jointly as tenants
Cath wants to sell. Don dying means that his share is held by the others – they all still own it jointly. Cath has not actually managed to sell.
Edwina has done something illegal. The others do not know and have not agreed. The bank could easily discover they were in occuppation. This is like Midland Bank v Green. This is like Chhokar v Chhokar 1981 where a wife was not told about a mortgage being taken out.
There is still joint tenenacy. If it is divided it must be divided equally.
b………… the bank is unlikely to succeed. The house was not Edwina;s along to mortgage. She did not get their consent and the bank should have checked this before advancing a loan as established by case law. There is a chhild there. The court wil consider the welfare of the child. It may be better for the child to be allowed to stay for a few years until her education is completed.