Joint Tenancy: All tenants entitled
to the whole of the property
4 unities - Possession, Interest, Title, Time
Possession = indivisibility
Interest = same in extent,
nature, and duration
Time = interest of each JT must vest at the same time
Ius accrescendi - the concept of survivorship
Commorientes Rule - the younger survives the elder
LPA1925 s184
Severance
Tenancy in Common
Undivided share
No right of survivorship
Only unity of possession required
Cannot be created in law - LPA 1925 s1(6)
Effect of severance
TCs in equity; always JTs in law
Methods of Severance
Statutory
LPA 1925 s36(2)
Unilateral notice
Written notice
Re Draper's Conveyance - Husband and wife
were JTs of matrimonial home under an express
trust. They divorced, and wife began legal
proceedings which sought order that home be
sold an interest divided. Husband then died
without a will before home was sold. Held,
severance had occurred by issuing summons to
the court since it constituted notice under
s36(2). Hence survivorship did not occur and
wife did not get the house; only her share.
Burgess v Rawnsley - I do not see why the
commencement of legal proceedings by writ
or originating summons or the swearing of an
affidavit in those proceedings, should not in
appropriate circumstances constitute notice in
writing within the meaning of 36(2).’
Intention to Sever
Gore and Snell v Carpenter - H and W JTs of a house in
equity. They agreed to divorce, and H’s solicitor was
tasked with drawing an agreement for their separation. The
draft included a clause which severed JT of matrimonial
home. Draft agreed in principle but was never finalised –
couldn’t agree on Money. Held, Husband advised to serve
a severance notice to wife. Husband refused, saying wife
might see it as a hostile act. No severance.
intention must be for notice to effect immediate severance
Harris v Goddard - H and W joint tenants in equity. The wife
left husband and sought divorce. The petition for divorce
asked for a a fair order on interests . H involved in car crash,
badly injured and died one month later . QN: Does petition for
divorce = immediate severance of tenancy?. No, It was
simply asking for court to award variation of trust. It was not
showing an immediate intention to sever.
Effective service of the written notice
LPA 1925, s196(3)
Kinch v Bullard - H and W JTs of matrimonial home. Wife
filed for divorce; sent a notice of severance with first class
stamp. Then H suffered a major heart attack. Whilst
recovering in hospital, postman delivered wife’s letter to the
house. wife felt horribly guilty and destroyed it. She said
she changed her mind and no longer wished to sever JT . H
dies, W then dies. Held, if it was delivered to that address
as last-known abode then notice effectively served.
Common law
Williams v Hensman
Act operating on a JT's share
Corin v Patton - A statement of intention,
without more, does not affect the unity of title.’
Unilateral declaration of intention to sever? Law not entirely clear
on this point. General view is that it cannot. A mere declaration
that has not been communicated to other JTs cannot of itself sever
the JT. Why? It would undermine statutory severance in LPA
s36(2). Also mock general requirement for clear conveyancing.
Mutual Agreement
Burgess v Rawnsley - Although no contract needed, you need an
agreement. Inconclusive negotiations as to ownership of house will not come
under Hensman II . In HoL, they said it had occurred because agreement has
been reached. 'The significance of an agreement is not that it binds the
parties; but that it serves as an indication of a common intention to sever.’
Mutual Conduct
McDowell v Hirschfield Lipson &
Rumney and Smith (inconclusive negos
as to ownership) - A clear mutual
intention to sever based upon
inconclusive negotiations (just like
burgess) will be difficult to establish.
Court said no, severance does not
inevitably flow from correspondences
from solicitors. Best authority for
inconclusive negotiation
Gore and Snell v Carpenter - ‘A course of
dealing is where over the years the parties
have dealt with their interests in the
property on the footing that they are
interests in common and are not as joint.’
Greenfield v Greenfield (physical
division of land by JTs)- ‘A course
of dealing is where over the years
the parties have dealt with their
interests in the property on the
footing that they are interests in
common and are not as joint.’
Forfeiture
Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund Life
Association - ...no system of jurisprudence can
with reason include amongst the rights which it
enforces rights directly resulting to the person
asserting them from the crime of that person.
Manslaughter
Gray v Barr - ...guilty of deliberate, intentional
and unlawful violence or threats of violence.’
Dunbar v Plant - . The 2 JTs had entered into a pact to commit
suicide together, simply tragic that one had died and one survived.
court granted compassionate relief from forfeiture. it could apply
even where JT has not threatened violence. The interest was
severed where joint tenant aided and abetted the other JT’s suicide.
Granting relief from Forfeiture:
Forfeiture Act 1982, s2(1)
Re K (Deceased) - . In Re K, the wife shot the husband
with a shotgun. At trial, it was revealed that wife had
suffered serious domestic violence at hands of husband
Rasmanis v Jurewitsch - The operation of forfeiture obvious
where there are only 2 JTs. Ie A kills C. then court will sever
C’s interest to C’s successor, D. But instead of it actually
being split between A and B, we are now treating B , the
innocent party, as similar to A the killer. How to solve?
Cannot sever JT at law - LPA 1925 s36(2)
Maximum of 4 legal co-owners - Trustee Act 1925 s34(2)
General Presumption: JT at law, JT at
equity. When does equity not follow the law?
Words of severance
'equally' 'to be divided between two' 'among'
Other reasons: malayan credit ltd v Jack Chia MPH Ltd
Contribution to purchase px in unequal proportions