Chapter 9 Self-test Questions

. Earl owns the (unregistered title) legal fee simple estate in number 15 Beeches Close. His wife, Fallon, has a constructive trust share in number 15 Beeches Close. Earl, acting unilaterally, sells number 15 to Xavier. Will Xavier be bound by Fallon's constructive trust share?

He will always be bound, as the disposition was not by two (or more) trustees and therefore Fallon's interest will not be overreached.

He will not be bound by Fallon's interest if he can prove he is a bona fide purchaser without notice of Fallon's interest.

He will not be bound by Fallon's constructive trust interest unless Fallon has registered her 'Home Rights' on the Land Charges register.

He will be bound only if he had actual knowledge of Fallon's share.

. Reena has been registered proprietor of 17, The Grange since 2006. Her husband, Ravi, has a constructive trust share in the property. Reena, acting unilaterally, sells number 17 to Jim. Will Jim be bound by Ravi's constructive trust share?

He will always be bound, as the disposition was not by two (or more) trustees and therefore Ravi's interest will not be overreached.

He will be bound only if Ravi's constructive trust interest is an overriding interest within Schedule 3 paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

He will be bound only if Ravi has entered a 'notice' to protect his constructive trust interest.

He will be bound if Ravi has protected his 'Home Rights' by entering a 'notice' on the Register of Title.

. Javier owns the (unregistered title) fee simple estate in 19 The Beeches. His cohabitant Kalina has a constructive trust share in number 19. Javier appoints Lukas as co-trustee of number 19. Javier and Lukas sell number 19 to Mika. Which of the following statements is correct?

Mika is bound by Kalina's constructive trust share if he had notice of that share at the time of the purchase.

Mika is bound by the constructive trust interest if it has been registered as a Land Charge.

Kalina's equitable interest will be overreached, and Mika will be able to evict her as a trespasser.

Mika is bound by Kalina's interest if he had actual knowledge of its existence. Otherwise, Kalina's interest will be overreached.

. Neve and Parmida are registered proprietors of 21 The Beeches. Neve, Parmida and Querida are tenants in common in equity of the house. Querida has made sure that a restriction has been entered into the Register of Title. It is in the usual terms requiring at least two trustees for a valid disposition. Neve and Parmida sell 21 The Beeches to Ramona. Ramona is careful to pay the price to Neve and Parmida jointly. Querida remains in occupation of number 21. Which of the following propositions is correct?

The restriction will prevent Querida's interest from being overreached.

Querida's interest has been overreached, and therefore Ramona can evict her as a trespasser.

Querida has an overriding interest within Schedule 3 paragraph 2, and therefore her interest cannot be overreached.

Querida's right will be binding on Ramona if Querida was in actual occupation at the time of the sale, and that occupation was obvious on a reasonably careful inspection.

. Taavi and Tinh are trustees of Cayenne House, which they hold in trust for three sisters (Gabby, Hayley and Isla) as tenants in common. Isla has fallen out with her sisters. She is still living in Cayenne House, but things are tense, and she may leave of her own accord. What of the following are the trustees NOT allowed to do?

Call a meeting of the five people involved, and try to come to an amicable agreement over the future use (or disposal) of Cayenne House.

If Isla leaves, require Gabby and Hayley to compensate her with regular payments almost in the nature of a rent.

If Isla leaves, require Gabby and Hayley to be solely liable for utility bills.

Order Isla out of the property when she does not want to leave.

. Which of the following types of dispute can NOT be settled using the procedure in s. 14 of TOLATA 1996?

Disputes where a trust of land includes a clause, imposed under s.8(2), requiring the consent of a named person to certain transactions, and that consent is (allegedly unreasonably) being withheld.

Disputes where a beneficiary wants one or more of the trustees removed for incompetence.

Disputes (like that in Stack v Dowden) as to the size of co-owner's shares.

Disputes between co-owners as to who is to be permitted to occupy the land.

. In 2010, Abiola, Kabili, Shaka and Tendai were registered as proprietors of Azura House. The men are brothers, and they were given the house by their parents. The trust instrument (executed at the time of the Land Transfer) makes it clear that the four men are tenants in common in equal shares. The parents tell you 'We gave them a house so that they had a secure home until they had their own families and careers'.
Abiola, Kabili and Shaka all now have homes of their own; they want Azura House sold and have just commenced proceedings under s.14 TOLATA 1996. Tendai has become very attached to Azura House, and has plenty of money. Two years ago he had a big win on the National Lottery. Advise Tendai.

Give in - it's not worth the fight.

Fight tooth and nail, and refuse to compromise.

Offer to buy them out for £300,000. (A few months ago, Azura House was valued at £600,000.)

Make an offer 'without prejudice except as to costs' to buy out his brothers. The price is to be three quarters of the current market value of Azura House, that value to be fixed by an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

. Husband and wife are divorcing. Under which legislation are disputes over 'family property' usually settled?

The 'property adjustment' provisions of ss.23-25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882.

Sections 14-15 of TOLATA 1996

Section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

. Two unmarried cohabitees are splitting up. They have extensive property in their joint names, but (unfortunately) there has never been an express declaration of trust. Under which legislation will disputes over the jointly owned property be settled?

There is no applicable legislation.

Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882.

Section 23-25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Sections 14-15 of TOLATA 1996.

. X and Y are tenants in common in equal shares of Blackland. They have fallen out, and you are the judge settling the dispute under ss.14-15 of TOLATA 1996. In what circumstances might you consider 'partition' to be the appropriate remedy?

Blackland is a large field used by both X and Y for grazing their cattle.

Blackland is a small house with just one kitchen, toilet and bathroom.

Blackland is an average size 'corner shop'.

Blackland is a small garage just large enough for a medium sized car.

Quiz Content