This is an extract of our Consequences Of Co Ownership document, which we sell as part of our GDL Land Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Land Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
CONSEQUENCES OF CO-OWNERSHIP
The law of severance allows the parties to break out of JT to become TiC
o This is usually to escape survivorship as you do not want the other parties to get your interest
Cannot sever by will, must sever before death (Gould v
Most cases are a dispute over whether a severance has occurred
There is a sense in such cases that the joint tenancy is unfair
(Williams v Hensman and Burgess v Rawnsley)
o In these cases, they repeat the idea that the law favours the certainty of a joint tenancy, but equity favours the fairness of a tenancy in common
Common Law Severence:
o Williams v Hensman (1861)- a deceased's estate was invested in a mortgage fund and co-owned by children as JTs.
Some of children died: if joint tenancy then goes to the survivours; if TiC then goes to the dead children's estates.
o Per Page-Wood VC, three ways to sever:
Act On Your Own Share
Statutory Severance (s. 36 (2) of LPA) and
Severence by Unlawful Killing (Crippen)
1) Statutory Severance under s.36(2) LPA
o Written notice sent to the written address of the property that is the subject of the severance (s.196 LPA 1925)
o It needs to be delivered, but not necessarily read (Re 88
o Once served, a notice to sever cannot be revoked
Kinch v Bullard (1998) - wife thinking husband would pre-decease her destroyed the letter severing tenancy.
Held that this was still effective.
o Unclear what 'written' requires (does email count?)
o A will is not sufficient, but muitual wills are (Williams v
o The written notice does not need to be formal - any written communication which indicates an immediate intention to sever will count
Smith v Davis (solicitors correspondence re divorce)
Quigley v Masterson (letter in relation to Court of
o But this intention must be immediate
A divorce petition alone does not convey immediate intention: Harris v Goddard.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Land Law Notes.