Understanding Co-Ownership in Property Law

Property ownership can be in the form of beneficial joint tenancy or tenancy in common. Tenancy in common entails jointly owning property while separately registered shares as co-owners. In most cases, the shares in common tenancy is 50/50 although if one party invests more money in the property then the ownership balance can vary. In the event that tenancy in common dies, their share in the tenancy passes to their nominated beneficiary. On the other hand, beneficial joint tenancy means that the property is jointly owned by a group of people who all act together as a single owner. The shares of each owner cannot be given to another party through will and therefore in the event that one joint tenant dies, their interest in the property passes on to the other owners.

Olwyn’s resistance to the sale of the property depends on the effects of severance on the property, i.e. whether that severance grants her equal right to the property as a joint tenant. First, Pat had a beneficial right to the property, including Nikki’s share because regardless of contributions, express words used conveyance are initially conclusive. This is true considering the case of Roy v Roy [1996] 1 FLR 541 where the extent of the parties contribution was considered irrelevant so long as the conveyor only conveyed what is not more than their beneficial ownership. Besides, in the case of Wright v Gibbons (1949) 78 CLR 313, it was concluded that alienation can be in equity only and must not involve a legal conveyance by signing a specific contract. Therefore, Pat had the right to Nikki’s share of the property.

Looking for further insights on Server Computer Configuration Essentials? Click here.

But the issue is whether Pat has the right to the entire property as to deny Owly access to it, and whether his charge on the property after borrowing to renovate the property. Here, severance could only have occurred if one party made it clear to the other of their desire of not holding the property jointly. However, Olwyn did not receive Pat’s letter and therefore was not privy to Pat’s intention to revoke the joint ownership. Furthermore, severance under s.36 (2) of the LPA 1925 must be in writing and even though it can be unilateral, all the joint tenants must be involved. But here, Pat was technically not involved based on the fact that she did not receive Pat’s letter expressing her intentions to severe the joint ownership, and therefore on this account, she is justified to claim her rights to the property.

Even if Pat would want to claim that she sufficiently served her writing on the desire to severe the joint ownership, the section 36(2) of LPA 1925 states that whereas the writing expressing the desire to severe take effect forthwith, it must be served in a manner that indicates an intention to bring about the expected results immediately. But this was not adhered to by Pat who delivered the letter to Richard instead of Olwyn. In the hypothetical that the property is sold, Pat will assume her share plus Nikki’s share while Owley will maintain her beneficial interest in the property too. Pat will have interest in proceeds of sale equal to her interest on the property after Pat has earned her proceeds of sales interest together with those belonging to Nikki.