Land law preliminary assessment
1A)
In order to advise Colman as to whether he has any interest in either Yantabulla or Muckinbudin and whether any such interest is enforceable against Eleanor, we must first look at the nature of the estate. Both Yantabulla and Muckinbudin qualify as being legal estates as per s.1(1(a))of the Law of Property Act 1925. We must look at Colman’s legal standing in both properties it establishes whether he has an interest in either.
Yantabulla
Boulton is the sole legal title holder of Yantabulla and is holding the property on a bare trust for the adult beneficiaries Anna and Colman as well as himself. Anna, Boulton and Colman each have a beneficiary interest in the property, having contributed £60,000 to the purchase price and it is an equitable interest as per s.1(1(3)) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Colman can prove his equitable beneficiary interest in the property because he contributed to the purchase price, he relied on the promise of buying the house in order to renovate and sell and we can prove there was a common understanding between the parties as to the plans for the house. Boulton cannot do anything with the property simply because he is the legal title holder. He does also have an equitable beneficiary interest but he also has a duty to act alongside the other beneficiaries’ interests. It is important to note the differences between the strength of a legal and an equitable right, with an equitable right typically being inferior to a legal right. An equitable right is a right ‘in personam’ as opposed to a legal right being ‘in rem’, binding on the whole world, and therefore without any registration, an equitable right will not bind a bonafide purchaser for value of a legal estate without notice of the equitable interests.
Because Colman’s interest has not been protected on a register, it is at risk of being overreached by the purchaser (in this case Eleanor). S.2(1(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 states that any equitable interest can be
In order to advise Colman as to whether he has any interest in either Yantabulla or Muckinbudin and whether any such interest is enforceable against Eleanor, we must first look at the nature of the estate. Both Yantabulla and Muckinbudin qualify as being legal estates as per s.1(1(a))of the Law of Property Act 1925. We must look at Colman’s legal standing in both properties it establishes whether he has an interest in either.
Yantabulla
Boulton is the sole legal title holder of Yantabulla and is holding the property on a bare trust for the adult beneficiaries Anna and Colman as well as himself. Anna, Boulton and Colman each have a beneficiary interest in the property, having contributed £60,000 to the purchase price and it is an equitable interest as per s.1(1(3)) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Colman can prove his equitable beneficiary interest in the property because he contributed to the purchase price, he relied on the promise of buying the house in order to renovate and sell and we can prove there was a common understanding between the parties as to the plans for the house. Boulton cannot do anything with the property simply because he is the legal title holder. He does also have an equitable beneficiary interest but he also has a duty to act alongside the other beneficiaries’ interests. It is important to note the differences between the strength of a legal and an equitable right, with an equitable right typically being inferior to a legal right. An equitable right is a right ‘in personam’ as opposed to a legal right being ‘in rem’, binding on the whole world, and therefore without any registration, an equitable right will not bind a bonafide purchaser for value of a legal estate without notice of the equitable interests.
Because Colman’s interest has not been protected on a register, it is at risk of being overreached by the purchaser (in this case Eleanor). S.2(1(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 states that any equitable interest can be