Legal Issues in Property Law: Case of John Daniel Cummins v Cummins HCA 6 [72], 2006

This report presents legal issues regarding the case of John Daniel Cummins v Cummins HCA 6 [72], 2006 and offers assistance to the victims of the case in regard to assimilated precedents of Australian courts. It covers co-ownership, joint tenancy, tenancy in common, transfer of property, and equity.

PROPERTY LAW
PROPERTY LAW
Property law is a segment of law that specifically deals with legal matters relating to land,
certainly tenancy and ownership in real estate. Considerably, various lawful systems have
presented the explanations of property law all with a point of coincidence.Property law entails
land, tangible, intangible, mobile and immobile assets. Therefore, this report seeks to present the
legal issues regarding the case in hand and offer assistance to the victims of the casein regard to
assimilatedprecedents of Australian courts.
The case at hand calls for an elaboration of some law terms and the related concepts. The
first law terminology is co-ownership that denotes a single piece of land or estate is owned by
two or more identities, the trustees.1The trustees have same rights of ownership in the estate or
land. Significantly, co-ownership applies to estates or land not goods and automotive. The
trustees have beneficiaries to the estate only that the beneficiaries are not entitled to legal
ownership of the land. The beneficiaries have the possession in equity that is covered by the
trustee.2There exists no co-ownership connection between the trustee and the beneficiary.The
connection is mutually based on trust.
The property law integrates joint tenancy and tenancy in common. Joint tenancy
assimilates four key aspects that include time, possession, title and interest. For joint tenancy to
exists, each trusteeneeds to obtain the right of ownershipin land. The unity of interest denotes
that each of the owners should have equal degree of leasehold or freehold.3 Under the unity of
title, each trustee needsto attain ownership documents under the same act as its legal owners.4
1 Alexander, Nadja M. "Verdicts in Court-related ADR’, 22." Law in Context Special Issue: Alternative Dispute Resolution and the
Courts 8(2004): 1-18.
2DratlerJr, Jay, and Stephen M. McJohn. Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative and Industrial Property. Law Journal Press, 2017
3Dalhuisen, Jan. Dalhuisen on Transnational Comparative, Commercial, Financial and Trade Law Volume 2: Contract and Movable Property
Law. Bloomsbury Publishing,
4Gleeson, Gummow,Hyne,Heydon and Crennan. Trustees of the property of John Daniel Cummins v Cummins. HCA 6 [72], 2006.
1

PROPERTY LAW
Finally, the unity of time explains that the interest of the trustees should be obtained during the
same time. The essential feature of joint tenancy is the facts that rights of ownership after the
death of one of tenants is directly transferred to remaining (surviving)trustees regardless of the
directions of the trustee.5
Tenancy in common is other type of ownership though no needs to incorporate the four
unities; time, title, possession and interest. Reference to Obergell v. Hodges, tenancy in common
is characterized by verses of severance, for instance, same shares.6The lack of implied or express
assertions and statements of severance results to the assumption that the joint tenancy and equity
must take its way.7Thus, Tenancy in this case is used in general base of argument in share of
property to the respective beneficiaries.
According to the case at hand, “John Daniel Cummins v Cummins HCA 6 [72], 2006”,
this is an expression of joint tenancy. The legal elements of interest, possession, title and time
were integrated. A valuation of the property is conducted by Harris on behalf of Cummins to
ascertain the indicated reasons of stamp fee duty and to disclose the valuation for thehouse.8The
disclosed value indicated in the agreement is a stipulation of the Cummins property purchase
price. However, Sackville explains that Mrs. Cummins did not make any payment rather than the
stamp fee duty which transferred the ownership for the property.
By declaring insolvent, the property owners impacted the sale of the house by indicatingthis to
the shareholders.9Sackville orders Mrs. Cummins to ascertain a proportion of sales and
accumulated interests for the house. The accountability of the proportion was summed by
5 Means, Gardiner. The modern corporation and private property. Routledge, 2017.
6 Obergell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039, 576 U.S., 190 L. Ed. 2d 908 (2015).
7 Ellison, Nicole B., and Danah M. Boyd. "Sociality through social network sites." In The Oxford handbook of internet studies. 2013.
8Graham, Nicole. Lawscape: Property, environment, law. Routledge-Cavendish, 2010
9Gleeson, Gummow,Hyne,Heydon and Crennan. Trustees of the property of John Daniel Cummins v Cummins. HCA 6 [72], 2006.
2

PROPERTY LAW
Sackville and indicated Cummins to pay only the stamp fee duty not the acquisition price for the
house.10 Cummins then decided to transfer the ownership rights to Aymcopic. Hence, the
accountability for the shares were contradictory since the acquisition value was reflected to be
the stamp fee duty and registration for shares were madeby Aymcopic, an indication to fraud.
In Property Law, the transfer of property by a person (or identity) who afterwards
intentionally turns bankrupt is illegal.This is since the estate (or land) would remained under the
ownership of the transferring person and could be accessible to the creditors if the transferring
process would not have taken place.11In simple terms, to transfer property is void if the reasons
for the process were to defend the property from being shared among its creditors.12 According to
precedents in US v. Windsor, it was determined that trustees require substantial material to win a
trial. However, the expectations of the trustees are always overturned to be equitable under
certain inferences like in the case “John Daniel Cummins v Cummins HCA 6 [72],
2006”.13Moreover, Trustees expects that the determination of the inferences should be based on
the prime facts in regards to the significance of the accusations declared against the owners, for
instance, considering the Cummins and the severity of the penalties of the results contrary.14
The allegations that Cummins were obligatory was enough to the main Judge and was
attributed in the first finding. The assertions indicated that Cummins intentionally issued revenue
for the prior periods, thus accountable for the obligations. Moreover, Cumminsdelivers the
revenue yet intentionally does not lodge the annual tax return.This act is contrary to property law
10 vanErp, Sjef, and Bram Akkermans, eds. Cases, materials and text on property law. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012.
11Gleeson, Gummow,Hyne,Heydon and Crennan. Trustees of the property of John Daniel Cummins v Cummins. HCA 6 [72], 2006.
12 Jones, Alison, and Brenda Sufrin. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. oxford university Press, 2016.
13 US v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 570 U.S. 12, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2013).
14 Craig, Paul, and Gráinne De Búrca. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, 2011.
3

PROPERTY LAW
and is void.15The exercise of remitting revenue coupled with the lodge the annual tax
returndeprives Cummins available properties. Consequently, Cummins considers shifting shares
as the only available option in protecting he’s properties since the revenue received was not to be
reconciledagainst he’s tax obligations.
The absence of information if Cummins contributed to the procurement of the house and
the shift of shares substantially provide for ill intentions of the Cummins to be beneficiaries of
the sale of the house. This is one of the key reasons why the honors were in support of the
assertion. Other include, The Cummins only paid for the stamp charges required for the
contract.There is no necessary inconsistency between the conventional bases as to the nature of
the ownership being dealt with. In August 1987, and the later conventional basis on which the
litigation are conducted, noted that the consideration stipulated was not paid and that the
property interest, ascertained as just described, was being dealt with on a voluntary basis.
It is important to put into consideration all the issues concerning the operation. For
instance, the principles governing trusties that the registered title was that of joint tenants rather
than tenants in common should be a key basis of argument in property law.16 The severance
enacted in August 1987 had the effect of puttingan end torights of survivorship.17 The dislike by
equity of survivorship, and of what Deane J described as the expression of its preference for
proportionate carriage of benefit and burden, is the equity reacted against the operation of chance
to produce a result at odds with proportionate distribution between claimants. The intervention of
15 DratlerJr, Jay, and Stephen M. McJohn. Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative and Industrial Property. Law Journal Press,
2017.
16Gleeson, Gummow,Hyne,Heydon and Crennan. Trustees of the property of John Daniel Cummins v Cummins. HCA 6 [72], 2006.
17 Garnett, and Mary Keyes. Private international law in Australia. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2011.Mortensen, Reid, Richard
4

PROPERTY LAW
equitable rights is engrossed by elements of joint tenancy that were examined through definite
purposes and in views of noble morality. The elements notes that the equivalence of the welfare
of members should not divide the liberty that makes up the possession. This is so irrespective of
intent or role and there is freedom of progress by survivorship. The existence of lawful tenancy
requires compensation that assimilates equity and integrates interests forits beneficiaries.
Considering opinions, there are important questions to be answered. For instance, what
action is to be taken in determining whether subsequent admissions or conventional assumptions
or arrangements were part of the purchase process? Also, is the registered title to the Hunters
Hill property acquired by Mr. and Mrs. Cummins not at variance with an equitable title?18 The
Hunters Hill property, at the time of registration as joint tenancy dated 10 August 1970 was a
vacant land. The purchase moneys were contributedin proportions. A mortgage over the Hunters
Hill property executed by Mr. and Mrs. Cummins in favor of the Commonwealth Savings Bank
of Australia on 16 July 1971 secures an advance to Mr. Cummins. The advance is a joint
payment of $8,000 on a covenant that the Cummins would erect and complete the dwelling
house within six months of that date at a cost of not less than $33,500. The tax return
forMrs. Cummins for year ended 30 June 1971 was lodged by her accountant showed that the
Hunters Hill property was Cummins’original place of residence.Similarly, pursuant to equitable
rights, the tenants deserve the right for the property.
During the second judgement, Justice Sackville refers to the operation of statutory law to
produce different outcomes todifferent classes of cases. In particular, His Honor refers to the
precedents on similar ruling. New South Wales law provides for the declaration of title or rights
18 DratlerJr, Jay, and Stephen M. McJohn. Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative and Industrial Property. Law Journal Press,
2017.
5

PROPERTY LAW
with respect to property by either party to a "domestic relationship". The term is broadly defined
as "de facto relationship". The doctrine elaborates the extent to which statutory law
advancements needs to assimilate the doctrine of equity in substantial verdicts over the
years.19Consequently, Cummins was liable for his portion of the obligations since there was an
absence of material information proving Cummins contributed to the procurement for the
property and the shift of shares was made to protect the hisproperty.
The perception in the above case is applicable to spouses if there is joint tenancy of title.
There are yet no indications of equity to apply if the spouses disclose the shares in the tenancy
since honesty is still the base of argument in determining the tenancy of the spouses.20The
sustainability of the spouses’ supports towards contraction or acquaintance of a property is the
optimal measure of the tenancy. The provision of equity is that, the overall intent favors the
tenancy in common. 21The extent of revenue and fortuitous instances invested by the spouses is
the consideration of equity. This goes hand in hand to neutralize the inequity between the degree
of constructive efforts and the involvement to the possession of spouses’ residence.
19 Garnett, and Mary Keyes. Private international law in Australia. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2011.Mortensen, Reid, Richard
20 Jones, Alison, and Brenda Sufrin. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. oxford university Press, 2016.
21 DratlerJr, Jay, and Stephen M. McJohn. Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative and Industrial Property. Law Journal Press,
2017.
6

PROPERTY LAW
Bibliography
Alexander, Nadja M. "Verdicts in Court-related ADR’, 22." Law in Context Special Issue:
Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Courts 8 (2004): 1-18.
Craig, Paul, and Gráinne De Búrca. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press,
2011.
Dalhuisen, Jan. Dalhuisen on Transnational Comparative, Commercial, Financial and Trade
Law Volume 2: Contract and Movable Property Law. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013.
DratlerJr, Jay, and Stephen M. McJohn. Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative and
Industrial Property. Law Journal Press, 2017.
DratlerJr, Jay, and Stephen M. McJohn. Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative and
Industrial Property. Law Journal Press, 2017.
Ellison, Nicole B., and Danah M. Boyd. "Sociality through social network sites." In The Oxford
handbook of internet studies. 2013.
Garnett, and Mary Keyes. Private international law in Australia. LexisNexis Butterworths,
2011.Mortensen, Reid, Richard
Gleeson, Gummow,Hyne,Heydon and Crennan. Trustees of the property of John Daniel
Cummins v Cummins. HCA 6 [72], 2006.
Graham, Nicole. Lawscape: Property, environment, law. Routledge-Cavendish, 2010.
Jones, Alison, and Brenda Sufrin. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. oxford
university Press, 2016.
Keyes, Mary. "A Critical Analysis of Jurisdiction in International Litigation." PhD diss.,
unpublished PhD thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane, 2004.
7

PROPERTY LAW
Means, Gardiner. The modern corporation and private property. Routledge, 2017.
Obergell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039, 576 U.S., 190 L. Ed. 2d 908 (2015).
US v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 570 U.S. 12, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2013).
vanErp, Sjef, and Bram Akkermans, eds. Cases, materials and text on property law. Bloomsbury
Publishing, 2012.
8