Equitable Interest In Property

Summary

George, having signed a contract to buy Rochicas house, holds an equitable interest, allowing him to enforce the sale. The Law of Property Act 1925 governs such transactions, requiring written contracts. Key cases like Williams & Glyns Bank v Boland and Lysaght v Edwards highlight equitable interests. Walsh v Lonsdale is relevant for equitable leases. If Rochica changes her mind, George can enforce the contract. For Jürgens deed to Freya, registered land gives Freya legal interest upon registration, while unregistered land gives an equitable interest until registered. Adverse possession requires 10 years of occupation. The 12-year rule applies to unregistered land. Liability for omissions requires a legal duty, breach, and harm. Duties arise from contracts, statutes, relationships, assumptions, or positions. R v Miller and R v Evans address duties in dangerous situations, with Miller being foundational.

Full Conversation

Rochica has signed a written contract to sell her house to George. What interest, if any, does George have in Rochica’s house?
Hi Dua! George, having signed a written contract to purchase Rochica's house, holds an equitable interest in the property. This means he has the right to have the property transferred to him under the terms of the contract. Is there any specific aspect of this transaction you are concerned about?
what is the key legal authority
The key legal authority in this matter is the Law of Property Act *. It outlines the legal framework for property transactions in England. Specifically:
- Section *: Contracts for the sale of land must be in writing and signed.
- Section *: Interests in land must be created via signed written documents.
Do you have any further questions about this transaction or related legal concerns?
what cases are there
Hi Dua! Here are some key cases relevant to property transactions under the Law of Property Act *:
- Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland (*): Addresses equitable interests and the rights of beneficiaries.
- Lysaght v Edwards (*): Discusses the equitable interest of a buyer upon signing a contract for sale.
Do you need more details on these cases or have any other questions?
does walsh v lonsdale play arole
Walsh v Lonsdale (*) is indeed relevant. It established the doctrine of equitable leases, where an agreement to grant a lease can be enforceable as a lease in equity, even if formalities are not fulfilled. This case can impact George's equitable interest in Rochica's house. Do you need more information on how this doctrine applies?
what happens if rochica changes her mind
Hey Dua! If Rochica changes her mind after signing the contract, George can enforce the contract through the courts, as he holds an equitable interest. This means Rochica is legally bound to sell the house to George under the contract terms, unless they mutually agree to terminate the contract.
Do you have any more questions about this process or need details on how George can enforce his rights?
does george have rights over the property
George indeed has rights over the property due to the signed contract. His equitable interest means he can enforce the sale through legal means if Rochica attempts to back out. If you need more help on how George can enforce his rights, please ask!
Would you like more details on how to proceed legally?
Jürgen has executed a deed transferring ownership of his house, which is registered land, to Freya. What interest does Freya have in the house? How would your answer differ if the house was unregistered land at the time of the transfer?
In the case where Jürgen has executed a deed transferring ownership of his registered land to Freya:
- Registered Land: Freya has a legal interest in the house upon registration of the deed with the Land Registry.
- Unregistered Land: Freya would have an equitable interest until the deed is formally registered.
Would you like more information on the registration process or any other aspect of property transfer?
if the house was unregistered what would happen
If the house was unregistered at the time of transfer, Freya would initially hold an equitable interest in the property upon execution of the deed. She would need to register the deed with the Land Registry to obtain a legal interest and complete the transfer process.
Is there a specific concern or question you have regarding unregistered land?
how long does she have to get it registered
Hey Dua! Freya has two months from the date of the transfer deed to register the land with the Land Registry. If she fails to register within this period, the transfer won't be legally effective, and Jürgen will retain the legal title.
Do you have any other questions regarding this process?
Fraser and Rani are aware of an abandoned building behind a council-owned leisure centre. The building had previously been used as an office, and it has a small kitchen and bathroom alongside a few other rooms. The building has a leaking roof, and the gas and electricity has been cut off. Nevertheless, Rani thinks she knows how to patch up the roof, and Fraser can arrange for gas and electricity services to be reconnected. What would Fraser and Rani need to do if they wanted to take adverse possession of the building and become the owners of the freehold estate on that basis?
To take adverse possession in England, Fraser and Rani would need to:
- Occupy the building without permission.
- Demonstrate exclusive possession.
- Continuously occupy for at least 10 years.
- Intend to possess the property.
After 10 years, they can apply to the Land Registry to become the legal owners.
Is there anything specific about adverse possession you need more details on?
what is the 12 year rule
Hi Dua! The *-year rule, under the Limitation Act *, relates to adverse possession of unregistered land. If someone occupies unregistered land without the owner's permission for 12 years, they may acquire legal ownership. The owner loses their right to reclaim the land after this period.
Do you have any other questions about adverse possession or property laws?
what should they do to demonstrate adverse possession
Fraser and Rani should:
- Physically occupy the building without permission.
- Ensure they have exclusive control over the property.
- Continuously occupy the property for at least 10 years.
- Show an intention to possess the property (e.g., making improvements, paying for services).
Do you need more information on any of these steps?
how to prove factual possession
To prove factual possession, Fraser and Rani should:
- Physically occupy the property.
- Control access and exclude others.
- Make improvements or repairs (e.g., fixing the roof).
- Pay for utilities and services.
- Secure the property (e.g., installing locks or fencing).
Do you have any specific aspects of factual possession you need more details on?
What are the requirements to establish liability for an offence committed by an omission?
To establish liability for an offence committed by an omission in England, the following requirements must be met:
- There must be a legal duty to act.
- The omission must breach this duty.
- The breach must cause harm or damage.
- The offence must be one that can be committed by omission.
Is there a specific scenario or type of omission you are concerned about?
What are the categories of duty to act?
Here are the categories of duty to act in England:
- Contractual Duty: Arising from a contract.
- Statutory Duty: Imposed by law.
- Duty Arising from a Relationship: Like parental responsibilities.
- Assumed Duty: Voluntarily taken on.
- Duty Arising from Official Position: Resulting from a specific role, like a police officer.
Do you have a specific scenario in mind involving a duty to act?
What is the rule/principle for finding a duty to act on the grounds that there was a voluntary assumption of responsibility? • What is the legal authority for this rule – in other words, where does this rule come from?
Hi Dua! The rule for finding a duty to act based on voluntary assumption of responsibility is that someone who voluntarily takes on a duty must perform it with reasonable care. This principle is often referenced in cases like R v Stone and Dobinson (*).
Would you like to know more about specific cases or applications of this principle?
What is the rule/principle for finding a duty to act on the grounds of creating a dangerous situation? • What are the legal authorities for this rule? • How do these authorities differ in the way they formulate this rule? • How should these authorities be used – i.e. which one is more authoritative?
The principle for finding a duty to act on the grounds of creating a dangerous situation is that if someone creates a dangerous situation, they have a duty to prevent harm resulting from it. Key legal authorities include:
- R v Miller (*): Established that failing to take action to mitigate a danger one has created constitutes an omission.
- R v Evans (*): Extended the principle to situations where a person contributes to the creation of a dangerous situation.
R v Miller is more authoritative as it is a foundational case.
Is there a specific aspect or case you want to delve deeper into?
• How do these authorities differ in the way they formulate this rule? -
Both R v Miller (*) and R v Evans (*) address the duty to act when creating a dangerous situation:
- R v Miller (*): Focuses on the duty to act when someone directly creates a danger (the defendant set fire and failed to extinguish it).
- R v Evans (*): Expands the duty to situations where someone contributes indirectly to creating a dangerous situation (the defendant supplied drugs leading to overdose).
Would you like more examples or details on how these principles apply to specific scenarios?