93
LEGAL CORNER Warning for joint owners
property – to literally make sure your house is in order. The hearing centred on a couple who had bought a house in their joint names. The marriage ended in divorce more than 40 years ago with the woman leaving her former husband to pay for the upkeep of the property - even to the extent of paying off the mortgage. But the past came back to haunt those handling his
A
estate when he died three years ago and the property would have passed automatically to his ex-wife. The case went to the Court of Appeal and the husband’s estate was awarded only a 50 per cent share of the property. The case of Wall v Munday [2018] highlights the need for co-owners to ensure that their interests in jointly-owned property are dealt with sooner rather than later. Bryan wall and christine Munday married in 1969 and bought 7 Wellsmoor Gardens as joint tenants. There are two ways in which you can jointly own a
property: as joint tenants, or as tenants in common. As joint tenants, each person owns the whole of the
property with the other. If one co-owner dies, their interest automatically passes to the surviving co- owner(s), whether or not they have a will. As tenants in common, co-owners own specific
shares of the property. Each owner can leave their share to whoever they choose. When they die, their share in the property will pass in accordance with their will, or if they have no will, in accordance with the intestacy rules. Bryan and christine divorced in 1974 and christine
moved out of the property. No settlement was reached and no formal steps were taken to deal with its ownership. Christine never returned to the property and Bryan
treated it as if it was his own. He insured it, maintained and improved it and let it out and paid off the mortgage As the property was owned as joint tenants, on Bryan’s death, Christine filed a death certificate with
Family
recent court case should serve as a warning to anybody sharing the ownership of a
By Marinella Hollies, Partner at Wollen Michelmore
the Land Registry, so that the property would pass to her by survivorship. Bryan’s personal representative, Alan Wall, challenged
Christine’s claim. The primary claim was that an informal settlement had been reached between the parties at the time of their divorce, which included a sale of Christine’s interest in 7 Wellsmoor Gardens to Bryan, and accordingly, he was the 100 per cent beneficial owner. In the alternative, it was claimed that there had been
a severance of the beneficial joint tenancy by ‘mutual dealings’ and a variation of the parties’ beneficial interests in the property in favour of Bryan. The judge concluded that there had been no
agreement between Bryan and Christine as part of their divorce proceedings. However, he did find that the mutual conduct
between the parties meant that the joint tenancy had been severed by the end of 1975. he held that the parties were each entitled to half of the beneficial interest in the property. Alan appealed the decision on behalf of the
estate. He argued that Bryan should have an 86 per cent share in the property on the basis that the parties conduct following the divorce evidenced not only an intention to sever the joint tenancy, but also to vary their beneficial interests. The appeal was dismissed. The case highlights the importance of ensuring that the ownership of a property is addressed by both owners as and when the need arises, and properly documented. Understanding how you own your property can be
Relax... Offi ces at
Dartmouth 01803 832191
whilst we take the stress out of the situation
particularly important especially when you come to prepare your Will and can be easily checked to avoid disappointed beneficiaries. Marinella Hollies, Partner Private Client
Marinella.hollies@wmlegal.co.uk 01803 832191
Torquay 01803 213251
Newton Abbot 01626 332266
Wollen Michelmore SOLICITORS
The Devon Law Firm
www.wollenmichelmore.co.uk
Wollen Michelmore LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority - SRA No 565599 Disputes Business Property
Private Client
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
