Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Explain "overreaching".
|
The scheme of the 1925 legislation was that although a purchaser would be bound by legal interests whether he or she knew of them or not, equitable rights would be either overreachable or registrable. Overreaching is a process by which a purchaser of
a legal estate takes it free of re-existing equitable rights in the land, but the equitable interests do not ‘vanish’: they attach instead to the purchase money, converting into rights to a corresponding share in that money. Overreachable rights are generally those of a family nature (such as interests existing behind a trust) and registrable rights are those of a commercial nature (such as easements, covenants and options). |
|
|
Explain the operation of the system of land charges registration.
|
The policy of the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 2002 was to simplify conveyancing by registering all titles to land in a central register, and the 2002 Act requires registration of title whenever land is transferred or subjected to a first legal mortgage. it is important to know whether title to land has been registered before the competing interests can be evaluated. When title to land is registered for the first time, it is necessary to know which third party interests were enforceable against the holder of the title before registration in order to judge whether such interests will:
• require entry on the register • bind a purchaser regardless of registration • be void for lack of previous protection as a land charge. |
|
|
Describe the ways in which the 1925 reforms have attempted to simplify conveyancing.
|
The land charges registration system has considerable advantages from the purchaser’s point of view in that it generally relieves him of the need to make inquiries and inspections on the land. Its major defect from his point of view is that registration is not against the land (as is the case with registered land) but against the name of the estate owner. One estate may have been owned by many successive people since registration of land charges began, with the potential of land charges registered against each under his own name. Since the LPA 1969 s.23 reduced the length of title which has to be investigated in order to find a ‘good root of title’ to 15 years , it has become even more difficult for a purchaser to discover all the relevant names, yet he is still deemed to have actual notice of the charges registered against them (e.g. a restrictive covenant registered in 1930 against the name of the estate owner at that time). However if bound by such a hidden interest then he may be entitled to compe
|
|
|
How to decide whether third party rights are enforceable against a purchaser of unregistered title land.
|
The 1925 and 1972 reforms radically changed the enforceability of third party interests in land. Interests in unregistered land which have a commercial value should be registered as appropriate categories of land charges. If no such registration is carried out, then such an interest is void against a purchaser for value or for money/money’s worth, depending upon its nature. The doctrine of notice has no application to land charges; thus an unregistered land charge is void even if the purchaser has actual notice of it. But the system of registration is difficult and has caused problems. Registration by name rather than by title is a particular deficiency.
|
|
|
Which interests in land will be overreached on purchase?
|
Overreachable rights are generally those of a family nature (such as interests existing behind a trust).
|
|
|
What are the advantages and disadvantages of overreaching?
|
Overreaching is a very useful tool for purchasers of legal estates in land, freeing them from fear of hidden or undisclosed equitable interests in the land and thereby assisting the free alienation of land. In theory the owner of the overreached equitable interest should not be disadvantaged, but he or she may in practice prefer an interest in land to one in money; a house represents more than just a financial investment, being also a home.
|
|
|
What is LCA?
|
A land charge is registered against the name of the estate owner whose estate is
intended to be affected. The registration of a land charge constitutes actual notice to the whole world, hence protecting the interest even when the land is sold (LPA 1925 s.198). |
|
|
Does the purchaser have to be in good faith and does the considerationhave to be more than nominal for him to be able to rely on the protection of LCA 1972 s.4(6)?
|
Midland Bank v Green
House of Lords answered both questions in Midland Bank v Green in the negative. Does this mean that the LCA can be used as an ‘instrument of fraud’? No. The answer to plaintiff's in such a position of the sun is to register their interest. Failure to do so will otherwise lead to people taking a legal advantage of London's carelessness. It is not fraud to take legal advantage of another's failings. |
|
|
Discuss
Midland Bank v Green [1981] |
A father granted his son an option to buy a property. His son did not register his estate contract. The father conveyed the land to his wife for 500 the property was worth 40,000 almost twice the sum which the auction was set at. The conveyance was done with some haste and secrecy. On the evidence the sale was made in order to defeat the unprotected option. The son reported to exercise the option that the mother reThe LCA requires that there be a purchaser for money or money's worth. Money or money's worth did not have to be a fair commercial price but merely valuable consideration. This could even be nominal consideration. The meaning of purchaser did not require that the purchase be in good faith. The latter is according to the statute. The son should have registered his interest to protect himself.
|
|
|
Discuss modern situation re unregistered land charges.
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Olympia Homes Ltd |
H bought unregistered land in Matlock and entered into an Option with Sainsbury’s to acquire part of the land to create a roundabout. This was needed for Sainsbury’s proposed nearby development. H applied to register his purchase. The Land Registry sent requisitions, which he did not comply with and his application was cancelled. Subsequently H's lender, W, obtained a charging order over the land. W then sold the land to Olympia. Olympia applied to be registered as owner. The Land Registry sent notice to Sainsbury's asking it to justify its claim that the Agreement bound Olympia, but Sainsbury's failed to respond in the time limit given. Accordingly Olympia were registered as proprietors but no note was made of the earlier Option on the title.
Decision Because H had not registered his title to the land within the time limit, the legal title had reverted to the former owner. At the time the charging order was granted, H only had an equitable interest. Accordingly, W could only transfer to Olympia an equi |
|
|
Explain how the 1925 and 1972 LCA work.
|
The 1925 and 1972 reforms radically changed the enforceability of third party interests in land. Interests in unregistered land which have a commercial value should be registered as appropriate categories of land charges. If no such registration is carried out, then such an interest is void against a purchaser for value or for money/money’s worth, depending upon its nature. The doctrine of notice has no application to land charges; thus an unregistered land charge is void even if the purchaser has actual notice of it. But the system of registration is difficult and has caused problems. Registration by name rather than by title is a particular deficiency. It was apparent that all parties knew about the Option even if the technical requirement for registration had not been complied with. In the circumstances, the Judge decided that it would be unjust not to order rectification.
|
|
|
Give examples of land charges and the categories as which they should be registered.
|
• the puisne mortgage
• the general equitable charge • the estate contract • the restrictive covenant • the equitable easement • a spouse’s/civil partner’s right of occupation under the Family Law Act 1996 |
|
|
Define: (a) purchaser for value; (b) purchaser for money or money’s worth. Is there any logical reason to have the two separate categories?
|
A purchaser for money or money's worth must offer something of measurable financial value for the land. A 'purchaser for value' must offer something that is recognized as valuable by the courts, but need not be financial. The only example likely to be encountered, and even then only rarely, is marriage consideration.
|
|
|
When will a purchaser be bound by a restrictive covenant entered into before 1926?
|
A purchaser is bound unless he is a bona fide purchaser of the legal estate for value without actual, imputed or constructive
notice. |
|
|
Which equitable interests are still subject to the doctrine of notice?
|
• restrictive covenant made between lessor and lessee
• restrictive covenant created before 1926 • equitable interest arising under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel • interest held on constructive trust • equitable interest under a bare trust • beneficial interest under a trust of land where the interest is not overreachable because, for example, the capital money is paid to only one trustee: see Caunce v Caunce ( |
|
|
What is constructive notice and when does it apply?
|
Knowledge of all things he could have acquired actual notice of having made those inquiries and inspections which he ought reasonably to have done. This would include investigating the title. This will involve looking at the title deeds back to the root of title which is set out at 15 years. Also he must inspect the land and make suitable inquiries of any person discovered in occupation of the land the two most important cases related to occupation of the land are Hunt v Luck and Kingsnorth Trust Ltd. V Tizard.
|
|
|
Discuss the relevant facts
Kingsnorth Trust Ltd v Tizard |
Mr.Tizard sought to obtain a mortgage over a house which was in his soulmate. In his mortgage application form he stated he was single when the mortgagee surveyor went to inspect property his true status as married but separated became known. No inquiries were made about any rights his wife might have had in the house and consequently the surveyor in the mortgagee were deemed to have notice of the wife's beneficial interest in the property.
She had beneficial interest since she put money in original matrimonial home therefore money on sale into imputed trust run by husband. clothes and things in house because looked after kids so court said she was an occupier.Agent did't need to look in drawers but he did know they were seperated and did not ask questions. Court said her occupation need not be exclusive, continuous nor uninterrupted. She ended up getting her share when mortgagee foreclosed on house. |
|
|
What are the 3 basic rules of unregistered conveyancing?
|
The purchaser of a registered land can become subject to another person's proprietary rights over the land. To determine the precise effect of another person's proprietary right against purchasers land following principles applies:
• Legal rights bind the whole world • Equitable rights fall into three categories: land charges, overreached legal rights -- being family equitable interest such as co-ownership rates • equitable interests protected by the doctrine of notice |
|
|
Hunt v Luck rule
|
Unregistered land occupied by tenant. Buyer then purchased land. Tenant claimed rights. Held: inspection wouldve revealed tenant and buyer therefore had constructive notice. Buyer was therefore not equitys darling. Buyer lost. A buyer has constructive notice if inspection of the land would reveal 3rd party rights
|
|
|
How can the two cases of Lloyds Bank v Carrick [1996] and Yaxley v Gotts [2000] be distinguished?
|
In Carrick, there was a valid estate contract originally and thus no constructive trust interest could be claimed; whereas the contract in Yaxley was oral and therefore void.
|
