Legal Issues in Property Law: Jason's Interest in the Property

Running head: PROPERTY LAW
Property Law

PROPERTY LAW 1
Introduction
Property law is that area of law that is governed by various forms of ownership and
tenancy in real property and in personal property within the system of common law. In
Singapore, the property has been governed in accordance with the common law legal system.
In the civil law system there is a division between movable and immovable property.
Conveyance is the legal process for transferring of property from one owner to another
owner. In conveyance, a contract has been made between the buyer and the seller (Martin,
2016). In this report, it will be discussed on the issues that whether the Jason has legal
interest in the property. The validity of Will in regards to Trust will be discussed in the
report. Jason equitable interest in the property will be discussed that whether Jason has the
right in the property. The remedies will be discussed that Jason can demand from the Court.
The remedies can be demand on resulting trust, consecutive trust, estoppels and other
remedies.
Legal Issues
There are many legal issues have been arise in this case that are:
 Does Jason have a legal interest in the property?
 Does Janet sister have the right in the property?
 Does Jason have an equitable interest in the property?
 Does Jason is accountable for remedies for the legal title?
Jason Legal Interest
The legal interest in the property arise from the property that has been against that there
In Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 case, it has been said when the property has been
purchased jointly and the beneficial interest in the property will be same. Legal interest arise
out of when there is evidence of trust.
The case state that Janet has the legal right in the property, she is 50% beneficiary in the
property, and after the death of her husband she is the sole beneficiary and as applied in the
case she can transfer the property and as per will that states the she is the sole beneficiary.
Therefore, Janet sister has a right in the property because the will has been considered in eyes

PROPERTY LAW 2
of law legal because it is in written. Jason right will not been considered because the trust can
be created with fraud, misrepresentations and threat (Armfield, 2015).
Jason does not have any legal interest in relation to the law. Jason right will not occur
because will states that Janet sister is the sole beneficiary of the property. As per law that
states assets that has left in a ‘will’ go through in accordance with the will. The Assets that
have been promised in living will not go through in accordance with that it is not in writing.
The beneficiary will always be the person whose name in the Will and not in accordance with
the trust.
Will has been made after marrying Jason
If the will has been made by the Janet after marrying Jason than it can be said that Jason has
no rights in the property because as per the principle states that interest arises when there is
no will. The trust that has been created was verbal and it was nowhere written that Jason has
the equitable interest in the property (Hudson, 2017). It clearly states that Jason has no right
in the property. The will in the eyes of law considered valid and bee prioritise above resulting
trust and consecutive trust. The intention is an important factor of trust and the will states that
there was no intention to give the beneficial right of the property to Jason. In Lambe v
Eames states that the words alone cannot create the trust and the intention also matters and
the court held that there was no intention on the part of the plaintiff and it concludes that
there is no trust (Douglas, 2017).
The facts in the case study that creates the trust between the Jason and Janet but as
established in the case Lambe v Eames (1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 267 the words are alone not
sufficient to prove the trust and the will creates is the valid document that states Janet is the
sole beneficiary of the property.
Do Jason has any equitable interest
An equitable interest has been made that that there has been made by virtue of an equitable
title. The equitable interest has been defined as the right in equity that is protected by an
equitable remedy. Equity has been defined by the judges that have been determined that what
is fair and then the decision has been made the decision as opposed to deciding what is legal.