Land Law tutorial 3

Frank paids for the motherfuckin flat
Betty didnt fuckin pay a dime
Nothing was fuckin said about the equitable ownership
Joint tenancy for legal ownership
Betty paid some household expenses
Frank wrote to Betty asking her to sell the house, she rejected and go killed in a car crash afterwards,
in her will she said the whole estate goes to her children equally, two months later Frank conveyed flat to poor Bert

Does Betty have any beneficial interest?
Dyer v Dyer rebutted by presumption of advancement? We have to look at circumstantial evidence before using the presumption of advancement as a judicial instrument of last resort (Ip Man Shan Henry)

Lily Cheung support advancement will prevail (in that case husband succeed to rebut it)
Tai Chan Lai v Tai Yuk Ki followed to Lily Cheung
The fact that the flat is bought in joint names will support advancement (Ho Nga Sheung)
If advancement succeed, Betty will get half of the beneficial interest because this is a joint tenancy.
If advancement fail, Betty get nothing because according to Dyer v Dyer, Betty and Frank are legal co-owner and holding the flat on trust for Frank who pays the money.

Equity follows the law (Stack v Dowden), subject to 4 exceptions (not applicable here), JT in law = JT in equity

Did Betty contributed by paying some household expenses?
The contribution was not referable to the acquisition of the property (no evidence says so).

How about using the holistic approach mentioned in Stack v Dowden?
Not enough evidence in this case.

Was the joint tenancy severed? Assuming legal JT and equitable JT
Legal: No notice or instrument
Equity: 3 methods 1) NO act upon 2) NO mutual intention 3) NO mutual course of dealing
In any case, the email suggests that Frank was asking Betty to sell the flat. If Frank intends a TC, he could have sold his share. But he intends it to be a JT because he is asking Betty's permission.

Legal JT severance:
s8: Notice served by a JT on another JT? Defined in s62. Prima facie a presumption of service because Betty replied (she must have received the letter)
The notice must display an intention to sever (Harris v Goddard)
Application: Betty has no immediate intention to sell therefore no severance
Agreement in principle is not sufficient i.e. agreement in condition on (Gore and Shell v Carpenter)
JT cannot be severed by a will. (Chan How Chuen Stephen v Chan Hau Cheong)
The act of selling the flat cannot severed the JT because Betty already died, severance must be in the lifetime of the Betty.
Moving out of the flat cannot constitute an act of severance/physical division is not sufficient (Greenfield v Greenfield)
Different if Betty forces him out because that will show an intention to sever




Also, Betty's will have no effect because JT cannot be severed by a will.
Since JT have right of survivorship, when Betty died, Frank gets all the share.

Assuming legal JT and equitable interest only on Frank
Betty's will have no effect because she has to act on trust for Frank therefore all proceedings will go to Frank.

When can the children have a claim in the flat i.e. legal owners?
When it was legal TC, the children will become the legal owners of Betty's share through the will but they have to act on trust for the beneficiaries

When can the children have a claim in the proceedings?
When it was an equitable TC, the children will become the beneficial owners of Betty's share through the will. Any proceedings will go to them according to the share.