THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3003 ZB

Transcription

1 THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3003 ZB DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW LLB ALL SCHEMES AND ROUTES BSc DEGREES WITH LAW Land Law Wednesday 28 May 2014: Candidates will have fifteen minutes during which they may read the paper and make rough notes ONLY in their answer books. They then have the remaining THREE HOURS in which to answer the questions. Candidates should answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions. Candidates should answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated. University of London 2014 Page 1 of 7

2 1. It is never easy for the law to strike the correct balance between simple, clear formality requirements and the desire to give effect to the intentions of the parties despite the absence of formalities. This much is evident in respect of the way proprietary estoppel may operate to create beneficial interests when no valid conveyance or land contract exists. Discuss. 2. Rigsby owned a large house which was sub-divided into three separate flats: Flat 1, Flat 2, and Flat 3. Rigsby allowed his cousin, Alan, to move into Flat 1 after Alan s marriage broke down and he had nowhere else to live. Alan signed a standard form lease agreement that Rigsby found online. Rigsby deleted all the references in the document to lease and replaced them with the word licence. He also added the following term: Alan may occupy Flat 1 until he re-marries. Two local students, Philip and Brenda, responded to Rigsby s advertisement about occupying Flat 2. Rigsby required them to sign identical agreements allowing them to live in the flat for three years. The agreement included the following clauses: Philip and Brenda must each pay 100 per week as an occupation fee, Rigsby can decide to let a third person share the flat with Philip and Brenda, and (c) Rigsby is to retain a key. Rigsby assures Philip and Brenda that he will only need to use it if there is a water leak. In January 2014 Rigsby agrees to grant Jones a lease of Flat 3 for two years at an annual rent of 10,000, the rent to be paid in weekly instalments. Rigsby never grants the lease but Jones moves in and pays the rent once a month. Advise Rigsby as to the legal status of Alan, Philip, Brenda, and Jones. Page 2 of 7

3 3. Adam was the registered owner of a large estate. There was a disused cottage on the estate that had been empty for some time. In 1990, Tim decided to renovate the cottage and make it his home. In 1993 he began refurbishing the property and occasionally stayed overnight when working late on the refurbishment. In 1995 he and Lisa, a keen gardener, moved in and began landscaping the gardens and mended the fences to keep their pet chickens from wandering off. Adam, who was attempting to secure finance to demolish the old cottage and build a sports complex, was aware that Tim and Lisa had moved in but raised no objection. Tim continued to live in the cottage until his death in 2000, leaving all his worldly goods to Lisa. Last year, after failing to secure finance, Adam sold the registered title to Saul, who bought the property after noticing its magnificent gardens. Last week, on legal advice, Saul wrote to Lisa stating that he was content for her to remain at the property for the time being. Advise Lisa. How, if at all, would your advice differ in EACH of the following ALTERNATIVE circumstances: Adam had expressly told Lisa that he did not mind her and her boyfriend using the cottage while he was seeking finance; Lisa threw Tim out last year after he refused to stop picking her prize flowers from the garden? Page 3 of 7

4 4. Adele owned Greengates, title to which is registered. Greengates comprised a furniture shop and an adjoining house. In 2011, when Adele retired from running her business, she leased the furniture shop to Jessie, but retained ownership of the house. Earlier this year, when the lease came to an end, Jessie purchased the registered title of the furniture shop from Adele. Jessie now needs your advice about each of the following matters: (c) Is Adele entitled to replace the underground drains in the garden of her house? Jessie is concerned that Adele s proposed new drainage system will no longer serve Jessie s shop. Can Adele insist upon replacing the broken TV satellite dish that is hanging on the side wall of Jessie s furniture shop? Adele insists that the shop wall is the only location from where it is possible to receive a reliable TV signal for her house. Jessie, however, wants Adele s unsightly satellite dish permanently removed without being replaced. Can Jessie continue to park her delivery van in the garage belonging to Adele s house? Jessie began parking there several weeks after she leased the shop from Adele in Adele had suggested the idea because Jessie s van had been stolen from the road. Adele is now claiming that she needs the garage to park her new car. How, if at all, would your advice to Jessie on and be different if Adele had sold the registered title to the shop to Jessie in 2011 (rather than leased it to her)? Page 4 of 7

5 5. Tom was the owner of a large estate with extensive grounds and a manor house called Mallet. Part of that estate, called Velvet Pastures, was used by Boystoy Ltd as a croquet ground and museum. In 2004, Tom gave Velvet Pastures to Boystoy to continue using it as a croquet ground and museum. The conveyance to Boystoy contained the following covenants by which Boystoy agreed: (iii) not to allow any structure on Velvet Pastures to fall into disrepair; to use Velvet Pastures only for croquet matches to be played between the hours of noon and 3 pm; to allow the current owner of Mallet to preside at any awards ceremony organised by Boystoy and their successors in title. In 2005 Tom died and left Mallet to his son Harold, who was also a keen croquet player like his father. Last year Boystoy went into liquidation and Velvet Pastures was bought by Girlsthing Ltd, which has begun staging ladies football matches between the hours of 3 pm and 10 pm on Velvet Pastures. These matches regularly attract a large and often raucous crowd, quite unlike the sedate audience that previously attended the croquet tournaments. At their last board meeting, Girlsthing decided not to repair the museum, which had been damaged in a recent storm, and announced that the forthcoming awards ceremony would be a ladies only event. Advise Harold. Page 5 of 7

6 6. Elizabeth was the registered owner of Republican Acre, which she purchased with Phillip, who contributed 30% of the purchase price. Republican Acre comprises a house, in which they both live, and an adjoining field. Andrew has an express easement over Republican Acre, giving him access to the river from his neighbouring property, but he now no longer uses the easement since he recently became scared of water. Last year Elizabeth granted Andrew a ten-year option to purchase Republican Acre for 5,000,000. In January Elizabeth sold Republican Acre to Charles for 10,000,000 while Phillip was on a 3- month round the world cruise and Andrew was staying in their guest room because all the bathrooms were being renovated in his house. Charles is now the registered owner of Republican Acre. Advise Charles. How, if at all, would your advice differ in EACH of the following ALTERNATIVE circumstances: No purchase monies arose on the disposition to Charles as the house was a gift from Elizabeth; Charles only paid 1 for Republican Acre? (c) Describe, briefly, how, if at all, your advice in and would differ if title to the land was unregistered and each transaction was carried out solely subject to the rules of unregistered title. 7. Although the mortgage is a creature of equity, it is time for equity to relinquish its hold and let statute regulate a device where the residential or commercial nature of the transaction necessarily requires a wholly different degree of legal oversight. Discuss. Page 6 of 7

7 8. A few years ago Elizabeth, Mary and Sylvia bought a country cottage together. They were registered as joint tenants and declared in the TR1 form that they held title in trust for themselves as joint tenants. Elizabeth contributed 50% of the purchase price, Mary 40%, and Sylvia 10%. Initially they used the cottage for occasional weekends, but Sylvia soon found a job nearby and began living in the cottage. Her boyfriend Jim moved in with her, to help look after their new born baby. Last year Elizabeth was posted abroad and sold her beneficial interest in the cottage to Mary. In January Mary wrote to Sylvia offering to sell her interest in the cottage to Sylvia. Sylvia replied that she and Jim would immediately start saving so that they can take her up on her offer. In February Mary was made redundant and wrote to Sylvia saying she needed to sell her share now. Sylvia explained she would definitely be in a position to buy out Mary s share in a couple of years but Mary has explained she cannot wait that long and is insisting, despite Sylvia s objections, that the cottage be sold immediately. (c) Advise Sylvia. If the cottage was sold now, how would the proceeds of sale be divided? How, if at all, would your advice in differ in EACH of the following ALTERNATIVE circumstances: The property was conveyed into their joint names but no reference to any trust was made in the conveyance; Elizabeth, Mary and Sylvia were business partners and no reference to any trust was made in the conveyance; (iii) (iv) Mary was adjudged bankrupt; Sylvia died yesterday leaving her entire estate to Jim? END OF PAPER Page 7 of 7