B v C & ors [2021] WTLR 1

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2021 #182

A was survived by C, his sister; H, with whom he had had a relationship; E and F, who were the daughters of A and H; B, with whom A had also had a relationship; and G, the son of A and B. C was one of the executors of A’s will. Each of A and C owned 50% of the shares in X Ltd (the company) and on A’s death C remained a director and was in control of the company. During A’s lifetime, a property (Property 1) was acquired in his name and remained so at his death.

There were three claims following A’s death: (1) H claimed to be the beneficial owner of Property 1 (the property claim); ...

Property: Changing intentions

Mark Pawlowski looks at how a beneficial joint tenancy can be severed after the parties purchase their family home in joint names Where the parties’ common intention manifests a clear desire to deviate from equality of shares, there is no reason, at least in principle, why severance should not operate so as to separate the …
This post is only available to members.

Ralph v Ralph WTLR(w) 2021-04

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

A house was purchased in the joint names of the defendant and his son, the claimant. At least part of the reason for the claimant’s inclusion was that it allowed the defendant to benefit from a mortgage needed to finance the purchase. The TR1 bore an ‘X’ in Box 11 which appeared next to the words ‘the transferees are to hold the property on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares’. The claimant sought a declaration that the property was held as described by Box 11 and an order for sale. The defendant maintained in a number of witness statements that the ticking of Box 1...

Lee & anr v Lee & anr [2018] WTLR 197

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2018 #171

Facts

In October 2002 the testator (T) and the first claimant (C1) bought Little Hendra Farm, Looe, Cornwall (the farm). They purchased as joint tenants. The farm consisted of a bungalow and some fields, within three registered titles. Title X included Village Field and Title Y included the Bungalow and Borehole and Church Fields. In fact, Title Z was the subject of a conveyancing mix-up, which was discovered later and resolved in 2008 by a transfer of the title, using form TR1, to T and C1 expressly as ‘joint tenants’.

In 2007, T and C1 made wills in substantially similar ...

Wall v Munday
 [2018] WTLR 337

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2018 #171

W and M were married in 1969 and divorced in 1974. During their marriage, they bought a leasehold property with the proceeds of their former matrimonial home and a mortgage loan for the balance. The benefit of the long lease of the property was conveyed to them as joint tenants. M moved out of the property in 1973 and began divorce proceedings. No steps were taken in the divorce to deal with the ownership of the house, which remained vested in them as joint tenants. After M left the property, W had treated it as his own, insuring, maintaining and improving it and, soon after the divorce,...

Cronin v De Hamel [2017] EWHC 454 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2017 #168

The Brindle Estate near Chorley belonged to Patience Aspinall, who died in 1985. The Estate passed to her sister Honour Ruth (‘Miss Aspinall’) as her executor and sole beneficiary. In the early 1990s, the Brindle Estate was subject to compulsory purchase for the construction of the M65 motorway over the northern part. By February 1994, the Department of Transfer had entered upon the land for the purpose of commencing construction. Miss Aspinall received interim payments on account of the compensation payable to her arising from construction of the M65, in particular, £46,727 in October 1...

Matchmove v Dowding & anr [2016] EWCA Civ 1233

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2017 #167

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the enforceability of an agreement to sell a piece of land through proprietary estoppel and constructive trust notwithstanding the absence of a written contract.

F, a property developer, was the moving spirit of the appellant (M). In 2002, F began negotiations with G for the purchase of a plot of land (the land) and a meadow (the meadow). F intended to divide the land into two plots. Plot 1 and plot 2 would be sold separately. G did not want to sell until he had planning permission, which was granted in 2003.

By late 2003, a ‘comm...

Davies & anr v Davies [2013] EWHC 2623 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2016 #164

Tegwyn and Mary Davies purchased a dairy farm known as Henllan in West Wales in 1972. It comprised a farmhouse, an attached cottage, outbuildings, and 182 acres of land. It was farmed with a nearby farm also owned by them known as Caeremlyn which they had purchased in 1961 (together ‘the farm’). The respondent, Eirian was one of their three daughters. By 1989, she was the only child left at the farm. She had a passionate interest in pedigree milking cows which was the main business of the farm, and it was by this stage clear that she was the only possible candidate to take it over. In th...

Ely v Robson [2016] EWCA Civ 774

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2016 #163

The defendant (D) appealed against an order of His Honour Judge Blair QC whereby he made a declaration as to the extent of the parties’ beneficial interests in a property (the property).

D met the claimant (C) in 1986. A year later, C moved with his three sons into D’s house (37 Ashley Road). That year, C also purchased the property with a mortgage and conveyed it into his sole name. D made no contribution to the purchase price.

In 1989, D purchased another property (89 Bournemouth Road). C maintained that he contributed c.£16,000 to the purchase price, but D di...

Hood [2016] UKFTT 059 (TC)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | June 2016 #160

Lady Hood was the lessee of the property in Chelsea (‘the property’) pursuant to a lease (‘the head lease’) dated 21 September 1979 and made between (1) Viscount Chelsea (‘the head lessor’) (2) the Chelsea Land & Investment Company Limited (‘Chelsea land”); (3) Cadogan Holdings Company (‘Cadogan’) and (4) Lady Hood. The head lease contained a covenant by the lessee not to transfer underlet or part with possession of part of the demised premises without consent of Cadogan. The head lease also contained a right for the head lessor or the Company to forfeit the head lease for breaches o...