Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2021 #185The claimant was the son of the defendant. The parties were the registered owners of a residential property. The property was purchased through a mortgage which was obtained using the claimant’s earnings. The defendant paid the balance of the purchase price meaning that the claimant made no contribution. The TR1 was signed by the transferors but not the claimant and defendant as transferees, but nevertheless contained a manuscript cross in Box 11 recording that ‘the transferees are to hold the property on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares’. The claimant claimed a ...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2021 #185Between 2011 and 2013, the claimant obtained multiple charging orders in respect of five properties registered in the joint names of Mr and Mrs Dua. The Duas occupied four of the properties as a single residence, known together as ‘Fulmer House’. The other was a separate property known as 49 Sudbury Avenue.
The Duas had purchased 49 Sudbury Avenue in 1987 and occupied it as their family home until 2004. The purchase had been funded by a mortgage and the Duas’ evidence was that Mr Dua alone had made the mortgage payments. In 1992/93 and 1995, there were two major extensions to 49 S...
Property trusts without liquid assets and no right to rent can cause difficulties for trustees facing proceedings. Nicola Phillipson analyses a case that considers these issues and more The distinction between situations where trustees have put themselves in a position of conflict and where they have been put there by the terms of the trust …
Continue reading "Contentious probate: Conflicts between trustees and beneficiaries"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2021 #182A 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); ...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web OnlyThe respondent (who had been the claimant at first instance) was the eldest son of the two appellants. He had worked on the family farm full-time for some 33 years, until his relationship with his parents deteriorated. The respondent then brought proceedings against the appellants seeking a declaration of his entitlement to a beneficial interest in the farm on the basis of an alleged proprietary estoppel. At first instance, the court found in his favour, concluding that the first appellant had consistently and over time led the respondent to believe that he would inherit a sufficient sta...
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 …
Continue reading "Property: Changing intentions"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2020 #181The deceased purchased a property in Weston-super-Mare (the Weston property) in his sole name in 2002 with the aid of a mortgage loan. He met the defendant in early 2010 and by the end of the year the defendant had moved into the Weston property with the deceased and it became his main residence. The defendant undertook repair and decoration jobs around the property, including repairing the boiler and decorating the main bedroom, and undertook work for others in return for work on the property by them. The general outgoings for the property and for the lifestyle of the deceased and the d...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2020 #181This was a second appeal against the decision of HHJ Pelling to overturn the trial judge’s order declaring inter alia that A was a 50% beneficial owner of A and R’s former home (the property) under a common intention constructive trust.
The trial judge had found that A’s father had bought the property in 1998 with the intention that it should be A and R’s family home. In 2008, A’s father had transferred the property to R for nil consideration. The trial judge had found that A’s father intended A to have a beneficial interest in it and had originally planned to transfer it into A a...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web OnlyA 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...
