Property Rights and Landlord Tenants Law

Property Rights and Landlord Tenants Law
Name
Course
Institution
Date
1

Question 1
Legal Issue
The legal issue in this case is to know if a defaulter is entitled to any rent collected by his
partner who has executed more than his obligation under “joint and several” clause with common
shares of 50/50. It also intends to identify the rights of the tenants involved in the Torrens Title
property owning under joint and several mortgage clause. Moreover, the legal issue tries to identify
whether the joint and several clause permits one to receive the benefits from the property and yet he
has not contributed his shares as stated in the contract.
Relevant Laws
The relevant laws applicable may include:
 Torrents Title clause
 Joint and Several clause
Application
The purpose of Torrens Title is to provide surety of the land ownership. It is a system that
helps in providing property ownership transfer. The title transfer occurs only after the filing of
property title to the local Land Titles Office. It provides a Certificate of Title that has folio and
volume, ownership rights, easements, and any encumbrances such as mortgages and other interests in
the land (Harding 2007, 337). It is vital because it abolishes grounds for numerous dispute litigations
and helps in avoiding the costs of lost certificates. On the other hand, it protects the registered land
owner from anybody trying to challenge the title in court. The exception to which the title could get
overturned is when the land ownership was acquired fraudulently (Anderson 2017, 5).
On the other hand, in the case AIB Group (UK) plc v Martin and Gold 2001 (House of Lords),
it was held that in a standard form mortgage the liabilities of each of the two mortgagors for the debts
is jointly owned (Low 2009, 2011). The mortgage deed states that if there were more than one
mortgagor, the expression shall be interpreted as referring to any of parties and the obligations of such
persons hereunder shall be joint and several. Other than that, the law shows that if any of the parties
2

under joint and several mortgage contract has executed more than his obligation, he will be entitled to
claim from his partner up to their contribution initially agreed upon.
Conclusion
To conclude with, it is correct to say that Barnaby was entitled to any rent Collected by
Anthony from Ashleigh and from Bill. It is because jointly and several clause alloys the mortgagors
unites the parties on the liabilities and benefits that comes from the property they own. Therefore, the
money that was paid by Anthony was not a mistake but a fulfillment of the covenant he made under
liability clause. However, it also permits the party that has contributed more than his obligation to
demand from his partner who has not paid his share as per the agreement. Therefore, Anthony has a
right to demand the extra amount he paid to the bank to cover the debt that Barnaby owed the bank. It
is because, under proportionality liability, each co-debtor is held liable up to a predefined share in the
contract.
Question 2
Legal Issue
The legal issue in this case is to determine if one party that has not met his shares obligation is
under joint mortgage is entitled to the money that has come from the projects developed by his
partner on the land. The law allows one a tenant to rent the entire property to third party, however, it
prohibits a single tenant from encumbering another tenant’s interest (Binge 2009). For example, the
law does not allow one tenant to exclude the other tenant from possession of property. For instance, if
the right of the tenant to possess the property has been violated by the decision to rent the property to
the third party, then the rental breaches the other tenant’s right. Under Section 1 of the Trust and Land
Appointment of Trustees Act the law states that, where two or more people own a land, they hold it
under trust (Harding 2007, 355).
Relevant Laws
 Tenants in common and joint tenants
 Possession of property
 Right to Profits
3