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

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