Chapter 2 Scenario questions

* not completed

. Hafiz purchased the freehold of a plot of land from Ingrid and was duly registered as the new proprietor of the land at the Land Registry. However, since then, a bank has come forward asserting that the land is subject to a legal mortgage taken out by Ingrid. Mortgage instalments have not been paid and the bank argues that Hafiz is bound by the mortgage. Which of the following statements most accurately summarizes the legal position?

A legal mortgage is a registrable disposition under s. 27 of the LRA 2002 and so must have been completed by registration if it is to be legal. If it had been, it would have been recorded on the register and Hafiz would have been aware of it prior to sale. It if had not been recorded (as appears to be the case), the mortgage will not be binding on Hafiz under s. 29 of the LRA 2002 correct incorrect

Under s. 28 of the LRA 2002, as the mortgage was created before the sale of the land to Hafiz, the mortgage is binding on the later sale to Hafiz correct incorrect

Under s. 29 of the LRA 2002, as Hafiz is a purchaser of a registered estate for value, he is bound by the pre-existing, legal mortgage even where that mortgage has not been registered correct incorrect

A legal mortgage is a registrable disposition under s. 27 of the LRA 2002 and so must have been registered to be legal. If it had been, it would have been recorded on the register and Hafiz would have been aware of it prior to sale. It if had not been recorded (as appears to be the case), the mortgage will remain binding as a mortgage takes precedence over a sale correct incorrect

* not completed

. Hafiz purchased the freehold of a plot of land from Ingrid intending to build his new business there and was duly registered as the new proprietor of the land at the Land Registry. However, since then, Jen has come forward asserting that the land is subject to a restrictive covenant that the land cannot be used for any commercial purpose. Hafiz wishes to start his business on the land but Jen objects. Which of the following statements most accurately summarizes the legal position?

Assuming the restrictive covenant is valid, in registered land, as an equitable interest, the priority of a restrictive covenant is determined by the entry of a notice in the Charges Register, which it appears Jen has not done and so the covenant is not binding on Hafiz correct incorrect

Assuming the restrictive covenant is valid, in registered land, a restrictive covenant must be substantively registered with its own title which it appears Jen has not done and so the covenant is not binding on Hafiz correct incorrect

Assuming the restrictive covenant is valid, in registered land, as an equitable interest whether the covenant is binding will be at the absolute discretion of the court. Given the clear terms of the covenant, it will most likely be enforceable against Hafiz correct incorrect

Assuming the restrictive covenant is valid, in registered land whether the covenant is binding is determined by the doctrine of notice. Was Hafiz's Equity's Darling? If Hafiz is a bona fide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice of the covenant, he will not be bound correct incorrect

* not completed

. Ken purchased the freehold of a plot of land from Linda and was duly registered as the new proprietor of the land at the Land Registry. However, since then, Monty has come forward asserting that he has been occupying the land, was doing so at the date of the sale, and has an equitable interest under a trust which is enforceable on Hafiz. Which of the following statements most accurately summarizes the legal position?

This is a question of adverse possession and whether Monty can establish title to the land by demonstrating factual possession, intention to possess and under the Sch. 6 procedure in the LRA 2002 correct incorrect

This is a question of estoppel. Can Hafiz be estopped from denying Monty's right to occupy the land. The modern law of estoppel was laid down by Oliver J in Taylors Fashions correct incorrect

This is a question of priority in registered land and overriding interest by virtue of actual occupation. The issue is whether Monty's occupation would have been obvious on a reasonably careful inspect and whether Hafiz had actual knowledge of the interest correct incorrect

This is a question of priority in registered land and whether Monty has entered a notice to protect his interest in the land. If no notice has been entered, Hafiz will not be bound correct incorrect

* not completed

. Oti and Pierre want to purchase a parcel of land belonging to Qi and Ren but they know that the land is subject to a trust and they do not want to be bound by any equitable interests under the trust when they become the new owners. They want to 'overreach' these equitable interests. How do they do this? Which of the following statements most accurately summarizes the legal position?

Equitable interests under a trust of land cannot be overreached. Oti and Pierre's best bet is to negotiate a lower purchase price with Qi and Ren to reflect the burden that these equitable interests will have when the land is sold to them correct incorrect

Equitable interests under a trust are overreachable when there is a conveyance of a legal estate and purchase monies are paid to two or more trustees. Oti and Pierre must therefore ensure that they pay the price for land to QI and Ren (as trustees); this will overreach the equitable interests under the trust. correct incorrect

Equitable interests under a trust are overreachable when there is a conveyance of a legal estate and purchase monies are paid to a trust corporation. As there is no trust corporation on these facts, overreaching cannot take place and the equitable interests will be binding on Oti and Pierre and new owners correct incorrect

Equitable interests under a trust of land cannot be overreached where there are only two trustees as in this scenario. There would need to be appointment of a further trustee before overreaching can take place correct incorrect