Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Joint Tenants
Each JT owns WHOLE of Prop (thus, JT cannot convey Prop to other JT).
All JTs have right to share ALL Prop no individual right to a share of the Prop.
Characteristics:
1. Unity of Title: all JT take interest under the same instrument.
A ---- B (JT)
THUS: A and C are NOT JT (not same instrument), but TIC
| conveys
C
2. Unity of Interest: interest must be of same nature, extent, duration.
3. Unity of Possession: each T entitled to possess WHOLE Prop.
Thus, if 1JT leases to 3rd party, JT severed. JT revives when L expires.
4. Unity of Time interests of all JT vested at the same point in time.
If any Us broken JT is severed converts to TIC
Right of survivorship:
2. Tenants In Common
Creation of Co-ownership
S26 CA: in absence to clear words to contrary PRESUMPTION that it is TIC.
Eg. instruments says to A and B presumed to mean to A and B as TIC.
Delehunt v Carmody (1986)
Prop bought in name of A but paid for by A and B.
HELD: A held Prop in Trust for A and B. No intention for ROS in instrument s26 TIC.
Converting JT TIC
1. SALE
2. MORTGAGE
Re Pollards Estate
JTs (Mgor) with Mgee. 1 JT gets 2nd Mgee JT severed.
OST Mg by 1 JT severs JT because it acts as conveyance.
Lyons v Lyons [1967]
Under RP Mg is NOT sufficient to sever JT (only charge, not a conveyance).
If sole Mgor/JT dies before other JT Mgee loses security. If sole Mgor/JT outlives other JT Mgee
has inflated security.
4. AGREEMENT/CONDUCT
5. MERGER
6. MURDER
o C cannot have increased interest (if C dies before A, then A gets B+C benefit).
Forfeiture Act 1995 (NSW) criminals must forfeit benefits of crime.
Leneghan-Britton v Taylor (1998): granddaughter take care of abusive grandmother for years. Killed
her.
o Held: not excluded from will just reduced for sake of justice.
Co-owners sell their co-owned Prop. Ends when all proceeds received: Re Allingham (1932)
2. Resumption
State can resume (take) Prop for public purpose (eg. road etc). Co-owners compensated.
CL: no remedy for CO to be comp for cost of improvement (made without assent of other CO): Leigh v
Dickeson (1884)
E: comp allowed where other Co would benefit unfairly if no adjustment made: Squire v Rogers (1979)
This right can become a lien in CO runs with land thus occup COs inheritor can sue.
BUT overturned by bonafide Purchaser for value, who takes without notice or who reg under TT (thus,
occup. CO should caveat).
Business
Squire v Rogers (1979):
Man occupy and woman live in US. Cyclone tracey and in aftermath, builders need temp accom. M built
many temp accom on land profit. CO end and M seek comp for improve. W as set off seek rent.
HELD:
o Occup CO does not have to account (split) profits from their labour EXCEPT where profits
received from 3rd parties on account of USE of the Prop (eg. Rent from Tenants).
o Occup CO does not have to account for improvement on capital (but sub. to cost v value test).
o Occup CO does not have to account for 3rd party profit that is spent in way consented to by other
CO (eg. Profits are to build common bathrooms).
NOTE: Occup Co is compensated first (lesser value that was added) and then the profits split.