Co-ownership and Beneficiary Rights

This assignment delves into the complexities of co-ownership and its interplay with wills, focusing on beneficiary rights. It presents a case study involving Rose, Paul, George, and Peter, analyzing their ownership structures and how Rose's will influences their claims to the property. Students must apply legal principles like constructive trusts and Goodman v Gallant to determine the rightful beneficiaries and assess evictions.

ASSESSMENT 2 2
Introduction
Land laws are the laws of land which are related to the rights of usage, exclusion and
alienation of the other person from land (Stroud, 2013). The land laws history of England are
applicable on the Singapore land laws, and these can be traced back to the Romans, and even to
rule of Saxon monarchs which was the Dark Age. The reason for this is that most of the history
of human beings deems the land as being a source of their private wealth. The English Court of
Chancery led to the development of this body of law, which is deemed as equity and this can be
seen as being concurrent o the common law in the present age (Hudson, 2013).
Court of Chancery had a key role of enforcing the usage and the role of this could not be
accommodated through a stringent framework of the laws of land. And owing to this role, there
was a differentiation drawn through the legal interests and the equitable interests (Moffat, Bean
& Probert, 2009). And when it comes it the land laws, the registration of land is deemed as a
crucial aspect of it. And this land registration system is based on three key principles, i.e.,
insurance, curtain and mirror (Ford, 2015). In the following parts, the different aspects of these
concepts have been discussed with reference to the given case study.
Question 1
Issue
The key issue in this case has George as the plaintiff and Paul as the defendant. And the
case revolves around the legal rights which George can claim regarding the house which had
been purchased by Paul and Rose. The rights relate to whether George can be evicted in a

ASSESSMENT 2 3
successful manner by Paul, or not. The creation of express trust of George would be deemed as
the key factor which influences the claims made by Paul for evicting him from the house.
Rule
The co-ownership in the equity is deemed as tenancy or the joint tenancy commonly. It is
crucial to show the manner in which the ownership is held and where it is a tenancy in common,
it becomes crucial to determine the proportion of shareholding which is held by each of the
tenants. The extent of the entitlement with regards to the declaration of trust can be freely
determined in the express trusts (Liew, 2017). This results in the implications being overridden
by the facts, the proportion of the contribution. However, where there is no express trust, for
instance in such a case where the trust had been created through a constructive trust or the parties
fail to provide the extent of ownership of conveyance, the beneficial entitlement is simply
assumed under the law through the conduct of the people (E-Law Resources, 2017a).
In Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432, Dowden and Stack co-habited the house and
purchased in their joint name. However, no declaration had been made with regards to the
beneficial interest’s entitlement (Gravells, 2013). The purchasing price of the property came
from the savings and sale of property of Dowden. And the remaining was obtained through a
mortgage. Upon the separation of parties, a sale of property and equal distribution of proceeds
was sought by Stack. The court held that as the legal title had been held jointly, the beneficial
interest had to be held jointly and this presumption could only be displaced in case the evidence
was shown that this was not the intention of the parties (E-Law Resources, 2017b).
A trust denotes the fiduciary relationship amidst parties in which the beneficiary interest
of the beneficiary is protected for the land or property which is given to another party, i.e., the

ASSESSMENT 2 4
trustee (E-Law Resources, 2017b). Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 881 provides that where there is
an absence of declaration of the trust, the constructive trusts have to be applied particularly when
there has been an inducement of trustee where the person acts in their detriment by believing the
other. In such a case, such person would deem to hold a beneficiary interest in the land (Clarke &
Greer, 2016). Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338 was a case where the house was brought in the
name of the defendant but the same was not contributed directly by the plaintiff. Due to these
reasons, applying constructive tryst, the claimant was allowed to obtain one quarter of the
beneficial interest (Sexton & Bogusz, 2015).
The proprietary estoppel is something which helps in creating the proprietary interest in a
property or a land, particularly where there is an absence of the standard or the proper
formalities. The operations of this is based on the unconscionable behaviour which is used to
award the interest in the land, as being a remedy, particularly when the entitlement is denied to
the claimant as the legal title has to be deemed as unconscionable (Wilken & Ghaly, 2012). In
Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159, the plaintiff used to look after the defendant and this
continued till the death of the defendant. The plaintiff was never paid anything and was instead
promised the house with the furniture. This led to the plaintiff being awarded £200,000 as the
court held that giving a proportional judgement with regards to the expectations of the plaintiff
had to be done and detriment had to be made. And the amount of £200,000 was deemed as the
detriment calculation for the plaintiff (Ball, 2015).
Application
The rules discussed above now have to be applied to the give case study. Firstly, it has to
be clarified that George was never named as the owner of the house. He was the owner of the flat
which was later on sold. Hence there was no express trust in this case and instead there was a

ASSESSMENT 2 5
presence of constructive trust, i.e., something which is to be construed from the conduct of the
parties. In this case, the conduct was such that George sold his flat to go and live with Rose and
Paul and gave the proceeds from the sale of flat to Paul, which was partly used by Paul for
repaying the mortgage of the house and partly for constructing the house. In return, the implied
promise was for George to live in the house and be provided with care, food and shelter. And this
even continued till Rose was alive. Only upon the death of Rose did Paul ask George to leave the
house. These contributions of Paul particularly towards the mortgage of the money would be
deemed as an indirect contribution towards the house, based on Eves v Eves and this would allow
Paul to make a claim on the house, particularly to the portion of contributed mortgage and the
constructed portion of the house. The conduct of Rose and Paul was very clear to depict to any
reasonable person that he would be staying in their house and in return, he paid them the sale
proceeds.
Applying Stack v Dowden, the house was co-inhabited by the three even though there had
been no declaration on the beneficial interest entitlement. The mortgage and the construction of
house were carried on by money of George and so, the beneficial interest had to be distributed
according to the contributions. Gissing v Gissing provides that in absence of declaration of the
trust, the constructive trusts have to be applied, particularly owing to inducement. Here, George
worked in his detriment and gave the entire money to Paul.
Also, applying the principle of proprietary estoppel, there was an absence of standard
formalities in the proprietary interest of the house. And there was an unconscionable behaviour
and denying entitlement to George would be unconscionable. Applying Jennings v Rice, even
though George never paid anything, he gave his life earnings to Paul due to the implied condition
of him staying with Paul and Rose owing to his ill health. Hence, damages have to be awarded to

ASSESSMENT 2 6
George to the proportion of detriment. And based on the calculation of detriment of this case,
there is a need to stop Paul from evicting George from the house as neither it is rightful, not
justified.
Conclusion
Hence, in this case, it becomes very clear that the conduct of the parties was such which
denoted the presence of constructive trust and based on the application of the different case laws,
it becomes clear that George cannot be evicted by Paul. And if the same is considered, there is a
need to pay damages to George as a detriment was caused to him when he paid the proceeds of
flat to Paul, and owing to the unconscionable behaviour, denying entitlement to George would be
unconscionable. In short, George cannot be evicted from the house due to his contributions.
Question 2
Issue
The key issue in this case is the changed position where it is deemed that the house was
conveyed in name of Paul and Rose as being tenants in common and it was later on brought to
the notice of the parties that Rose had named George as being the sole beneficiary to her
property in the will.
Rule
Tenancy in common states that both the owners have the share in the property and this
share is undivided, which means that the co-owners are entitled to occupy the entire property
even when there share is very small (Watts, 2013). Also, there is no physical division of land and
the possession is held in unity. The concept becomes relevant on the sale, or the death of the

ASSESSMENT 2 7
person or where the property is to be distributed. There is no operation of survivorship when it
comes to tenants in common and each tenant can nominate to whom they will leave their share
(Atkins, 2015).
Goodman v Gallant [1986] Fam 106 was a case in which Goodman held half the
beneficial interests in the matrimonial house. And the legal title was held by the husband. After
her husband leaving the home five years later, Goodman got into a relationship with Gallant and
he moved in the house. After two years, the negotiations were entered into with husband for his
share of the house to be sold to Goodman. The price was set and the declaration of trust provided
that the property was held as joint tenants. Goodman gave a notice later on for severing the joint
tenancy and stated that she held 75% beneficial interest due to the fact that she already held 50%
shares and had contributed in the purchase of the later half. The court however, held that the
entitlement was to continue at 50% of the beneficial ownership. This was because the declaration
of trust, in absence of mistake or fraud had to be taken as a conclusive aspect with regards to the
ownership rights of the parties and the contribution of the parties was to be deemed as irrelevant
(E-Law Resources, 2017c).
Application
In the given case study, if Rose and Paul are deemed as tenants in common. This would
mean that upon the death of any of these two, they can state to whom their share of property
would go. Applying Goodman v Gallant Rose could give the entitlement which she owed to
George and not that of Paul and so, she could make her the sole beneficiary for her property. As
the will of Rose provided that George had to be deemed as the sole beneficiary of her property,
the express right over the property of George would disallow Peter from evicting George. As

ASSESSMENT 2 8
George would become an express beneficiary, instead of the same being required to be obtained
from the conduct of the parties under constructive trust, Paul could not be evicted from the home.
Conclusion
On the basis of the application of the facts of the case study to the relevant rules, Paul
cannot evict George even in this case as he had explicitly been made the beneficiary of the
property by the will of Rose.

ASSESSMENT 2 9
References
Atkins, S. (2015). Equity and Trusts (2nd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Ball, J. (2015). Jennings v Rice [2002]. Retrieved from:
https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/jennings-v-rice-2002
Clarke, S., & Greer, S. (2016). Land Law Directions (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
E-Law Resources. (2017a). Co-ownership. Retrieved from: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Land/Co-
ownership.php
E-Law Resources. (2017b). Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 House of Lords. Retrieved from:
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Land/Stack-v-Dowden.php
E-Law Resources. (2017c). Goodman v Gallant [1986] Fam 106 Court of Appeal. Retrieved
from: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Land/Goodman-v-Gallant.php
Ford, R.O. (2015). The Parables of Christ. Indiana: Xlibris Corporation.
Gravells, N. (2013). Landmark Cases in Land Law. Portland: Hart Publishing.
Hudson, A. (2013). Equity & Trusts (3rd ed.). London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Liew, Y.K. (2017). Rationalising Constructive Trusts. Portland: Hart Publishing.
Moffat, G., Bean, G., & Probert, R. (2009). Trusts Law: Text and Materials (5th ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

ASSESSMENT 2 10
Sexton, R., & Bogusz, B. (2015). Complete Land Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (4th ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stroud, A. (2013). Making Sense of Land Law (4th ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Watts, G. (2013). Todd & Watt's Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts (9th ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wilken, S., & Ghaly, K. (2012). The Law of Waiver, Variation and Estoppel (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.