Legal And Beneficial Interests In Joint Tenancy

Legal Estate and Beneficial Estate

The issue with respect to estate is in whom is the estate vested legally and beneficially. The applicable rule is Law of Property Act 1925, Section 34 (2). As per this rule, legal estate can only be vested in a maximum of four individuals. In this scenario, the first four named, that is Jonathon, Emma, Marcia, Anna, hold the legal estate in the property. They also hold the beneficial estate in the property along with Damon. Students struggling with complex legal concepts like these, prefer seeking professional law dissertation help as it can provide them the most valuable insights and assistance in navigating through legal frameworks.

Jonathan- Sale of House to Anna

The issue with respect to Jonathan’s sale of house to Anna is whether the sale of house is valid and what is the effect of the same on the joint tenancy. The rule that is applicable to this issue is that of severance of joint ownership under Section 36(2) of Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925). Joint tenants hold the property in four unities of title, interest, possession and time. However, there can be severance of joint ownership when a joint tenant acts on his own share. Severance of joint ownership can be effected by mutual agreement, mortgage of interest in the property or a sale of the property share. In order to effect severance, some final and irrevocable unilateral act of alienation must be undertaken by the joint tenant. In 2013, Jonathon got married and moved out of the house. He decided to sell his interest in the house to his childhood friend Anna. The sale of Jonathan’s share to Anna acts to severe the joint tenancy because it is a unilateral and final act of severance. This will have the effect of Anna holding the share as a tenant in common. To conclude this point, the sale of house interest to Anna operates to severe joint tenancy. After this event, the legal estate is vested in Emma, Marcia, Anna and the beneficial estate is vested in Emma, Marcia, Anna and Damon.

Emma- Severance of Joint Tenancy and Will

The issue with respect to Emma’s severance of joint tenancy and the making of the will is whether the process of severance followed by Emma has effectively led to severance and whether the will made by Emma leaving her property interest to Jenny is valid or not. The rule that is applicable in this situation is that of severance of joint ownership under Section 36(2) of Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925).

Joint tenancy is severable by the action of any joint tenant who is operating on his own share. As per the LPA 1925, Section 36(2), a unilateral act by the joint tenant alienating his share has the effect of severing joint ownership. The condition is that the unilateral act alienating the share must be final and irrevocable. A transfer of own share in property to another is an act of severance and the person to whom the share is transferred becomes a tenant in common, while the other joint tenants remain bound by the rule of survivorship. In such cases, the legal ownership remains with the joint tenants, and they hold the interest of the transferee in equitable trust.

A notice of severance must be served to joint tenants by the one severing the joint tenancy under LPA 1925, Section 36(2). The notice should make the intent to immediately and effectively severe joint tenancy clear. Such a notice can be served by recorded delivery post under LPA 1925, section 196(4). In case the notice is sent by recorded delivery the notice is deemed received by the other joint tenants even if they claim to have not received it.

When individuals jointly own property as joint tenants, they have equal rights to the whole property and none of them can transfer ownership of the property in their own will. When one of the joint tenants dies, his share of property goes to the others who have survived him (jus accrescendi). Thus, joint owners cannot dispose of their interest by making a provision in a will.

In the present case, Emma wrote the letters of severance of joint tenancy in 2014 and posted the letter using recorded delivery, but then died in a car accident later that day. When the others received and read their letters, they discovered that Emma wished to sever the joint tenancy 'effective 1 January 2017'. This means that the notice was not effective immediately, which is the condition for the severance of joint tenancy. Therefore, the tenancy was not actually severed by the notice.

A gift made by Emma under his will to her sister Jenny does not have the effect of severing joint tenancy as any such act of ‘acting on one’s share’ has to be inter vivos. The severance of beneficial interest in the property can only be done inter vivos. Consequently, the transfer of her share to her sister Jenny cannot take effect, and on Emma’s death, the property will devolve on the remaining joint owners - Marcia, Anna and Damon.

To conclude this point, the notice of severance did not have the effect of severance because it did not intend to operate immediately. Moreover, the will transferring the share to Jenny is not valid because such a transfer on joint property must be inter vivos.

Damon’s Bankruptcy

The issue with respect to Damon’s bankruptcy is whether the bankruptcy will have the effect of severing joint ownership. The rule that is applicable in this case is that of severance of joint ownership and Insolvency Act 1986, Section 306.

The bankruptcy of a joint owner has the effect of severing the joint tenancy, whereupon his interest is vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. The provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, Section 306 become applicable in such a scenario and as soon as the order of bankruptcy is made, the joint tenancy is severed and the interest in the property becomes vested in the trustee in bankruptcy with immediate effect. In such a situation, the lender may be able to get at the interest of the joint tenant’s interest, but not the interest of the other joint tenants due to severance.

In this case scenario, Damon had his own pizza delivery business and, due to a bad turn in the financial markets, he suffered financial difficulties and was declared bankrupt in May 2014. This means that the joint tenancy was severed and Damon’s interest was vested in the trustee in bankruptcy.

To conclude this point, bankruptcy had the effect of severance of joint ownership. The joint ownership is now vested in Anna, Jonathon and Marcia, who each have a right of survivorship in the property. Emma’s share is also vested in Anna, Jonathan and Marcia. Damon’s share is vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. Therefore, the beneficial share in the property at this point is vested equally in Anna and Marcia.

Marcia’s Murder and Marcia’s Will

The issue with respect to Marcia’s murder and her will is whether the murder had the effect of forfeiture of interest by Damon and whether the will made by Marcia leaving her share to Anna is valid or not. The rule that is applicable in this situation is Forfeiture Act 1982, Section 2. An unlawful act of killing by one joint owner has the effect of forfeiture of the share of the joint owner as per the Forfeiture Act 1982, Section 2. The act of unlawful killing of one joint owner by the other will lead to the perpetrator forfeiting his share in the property. In 2015, Marcia, Anna and Damon had an argument. Marcia offered to 'buy Anna and Damon out' and they started negotiations. They tentatively agreed on an amount for Marcia to pay to Anna and Damon. Damon killed Marcia because he wanted to sell the property. As per the provisions of the Forfeiture Act 1982, Section 2 and decided authorities, Damon has forfeited his beneficial interest in the property. Marcia left everything to Anna in her will. However, the joint owners cannot dispose of their interest in the property through a will or upon their death. Therefore, the disposal of share through will is not valid. Nevertheless, as Damon has forfeited his interest in the property due to the unlawful killing, and there are no survivors in joint tenancy other than Anna, the entire legal estate in the property is now vested in Anna. The beneficial interest in the property is also vested in Anna. To conclude this point, the legal title is held in the name of Anna. The beneficial interest is vested in Anna. Damon has forfeited his beneficial interest because of the unlawful killing of Marcia. Therefore, he will not receive any interest in the property.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Legal Analysis of Easement Rights and Permissive Licences in Property Disputes.

Table of Cases

• First National Bank v Achampong [2003] EWCA 487.
• First National Securities Ltd v Hegerty [1985] QB 850.
• Gould v Kemp (1834) 39 ER 959
• Harris v Goddard [1983] 3 All ER 242.
• Re Draper's Conveyance [1969] 1 Ch 486, ChD. Re K [1985] Ch 180. Re 88 Berkeley Road NW9 [1971] Chd 648. Gray J, Unlocking Land Law (Routledge 2016). MacKenzie J, Textbook on Land Law (16th Edition Oxford University Press 2016).