LAWS 205 - co-ownership - tenancies in common.

Front

What do co-owners possess in the property in a tenancy in common and how is this divided between the co-owners?

Back

Co-owners owning a property as tenants in common possess shares in the property that can be unequal or equal.

Front

If a co-owners has an unequally large share in the property, what does this unequally large share entitle him to?

Back

Any profits generated from the land will be given in a larger proportion to the co-owner who has a larger share in the property, in a tenancy in common.

Front

If a co-owners has an unequally large share in the property, what does this unequally large share not entitle him to? Why/why not?

Back

Due to the unity of possesion being the only neccecary unity required in a tenancy in common, if a co-owner has an unequally large share in the property, his unequally large share does not entitle him to have possesion over a larger portion of the land, because each co-owner is equally entitled to the entire land.

Front

What is a crucial element of a joint tenancy that is not applicable to a tenancy in common?

Back

The right of survivorship.

Front

What does equity prefer and why is this?

Back

Equity prefers a tenancy in common. The reason for this is because of the right of survivorship, as equity argues that such an essential feature of a joint tenancy can lead to the unjust enrichment of a co-owner.

Front

What is purchase money?

Back

Money that is used to purchase the property.

Front

What is the second way in which a tenancy in common can be created?

Back

The second way in which a tenancy in common can be created is through implication of equity.

Front

In which case will a tenancy in common be created by implication of equity? Why?

Back

In the case of Delehunt, the court held that if 'A' has contributed more purchase money than the other co-owner(s), when purchasing the property as joint tenants, then if a dispute arises between the co-owners, the court may order that the joint tenancy turn into a tenancy in common with unequal shares. In such a case, 'A' will have a higher share in the property, than the co-owners who contributed less purchase money.

Front

How can one joint tenant argue that a tenancy in common had not been created by implication of equity? How can they argue this?

Back

In the cases of Cameron and King, the court held that if a joint tenant can prove that the intention of the parties was to sustain a joint tenancy, then the court may hold that the joint tenancy remain, even if it would fly in the face of equity.

Front

Give an example of how a joint tenant can prove that the intention of the co-owners was to sustain the joint tenancy, even though it would fly in the face of equity.

Back

In a case where one joint tenant earns more money than the other joint tenant ,due to the other joint tenant looking after kids etc., the court may find that sustaining a joint tenancy was the intention of the parties, all along, due to the right of survivorship.