These exam notes were used to achieve a High Distinction in Property B at Monash University, and include problem question notes and a separate document including content and suggestions for policy question answers. The notes cover all course content as of the exam year and include clear and easily usable exam problem structures.
The notes are easily navigated as include clear and comprehensive lists of contents and page numbers.
The author of these notes has never scored less than a High Di...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Property B Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
A joint tenancy (JT):undivided shares, right of survivorship
A tenancy in common (TIC): same interest shared in distinct shares
Introduction |
---|
There is an issue of co-ownership. Here, [eg Y wants to prove joint tenants/X wants to prove TiCs and reason why they want to prove]. The position at both law and at equity must be considered to decide the rights of the parties.
Position at law |
---|
At common law there is a presumption for joint tenancies, which is applied by the Torrens system legislation.
Torrens system |
---|
The Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic):
S 30(2) provides that if two or more persons are registered as joint proprietors, they are deemed to be entitled as joint tenants (JTs). This deeming provision may be rebutted by evidence a JT was not intended.
S 33(4) has the effect that if a document granting a mortgage (or any other interest in land including leases, transfers) is lodged for registration they are deemed to be entitled as JTs unless the document states otherwise. This deeming provision may be rebutted by evidence that a JT was not intended.
Registration as JTs conclusively determines the nature of their interests as far as third parties are concerned. However, even under legislation, the parties can establish they hold as TICs between themselves: Calverley
To decide if the presumption of a JT is rebutted, common law must also be considered. [Remember that adverse possessors may not be registered so only CL rules will apply]
Common law |
---|
The common law presumes a JT as long as the four unities are present and the document establishing the co-ownership contains no words of severance.
Four unities
The unity of possession means that each co-owner is entitled (along with the other co-owners) to possession of the whole property.
One party is not permitted to exclude the other or sue another for trespass
However destruction of the property or exclusion may mean remedies arise
The unity of interest requires that the interest of each tenant must be the same in nature, extent and duration.
Eg both must have life estates, fee simple, lease for the same period of time
The unity of title requires that all the tenants have derived their interests from the same document/instrument or same act.
Document: lease/contract/registrable transfer etc
Act: eg adverse possession
To show unity of time, the interests of all the tenants must vest at the same point in time.
Exceptions: a JT may arise even where the unity of time does not exist where:
the interest is conveyed to a trustee for beneficiaries [the concept of trust still means there is unity of time]
any disposition in a will.
Words of severance
If the instrument that creates the co-ownership uses words of severance (words indicating an intention to hold in distinct shares), the parties will be TICs rather than JTs.
Examples: ‘among’, ‘between A and B’, ‘to A and B respectively’, ‘to A and B to share and share alike’, ‘in equal shares’, ‘amongst’ or ‘respectively’.
If there are contradicting expressions used (eg ‘share and share alike as JTs’), a rule of construction provides that:
the first words will prevail in a deed
the last words will prevail in a will
Conclusion: position at law and consequences |
---|
[Note if JT/TIC; whether right of survivorship and note effects will be considered at end of analysis]
To decide overall whether a JT or TIC applies, the position in equity must be considered, since it will prevail.
Position at equity |
---|
Equity will normally follow law, but there are certain situations where equity will presume a TIC.
Per Malayan Credit, the accepted situations may not be an exhaustive list.
To show a TIC, the unity of possession is required. As above, this unity is/is not present.
|
---|
In such case, parties are presumed in equity to hold as TICs in proportion to their contributions (Robinson v Preston; Bull v Bull).
‘Contributions’ will include assuming joint liability under a mortgage: Calverley
The presumption of a TiC does not arise where a conveyance to the parties expressly declares their beneficial interests in the property (Goodman v Gallant)
This is subject to the presumption of advancement (see ‘resulting trusts’ for relevant relationships). However, a presumption of advancement can be rebutted by evidence of actual intention to the contrary at the time of the transfer or purchase. [Note evidence]
|
---|
In such case, equity will presume a TIC despite the position at law (Re Jackson). This is because mortgagees usually lend money as an investment and it is unlikely that co-owners would expect to forgo their money if they died before it was repaid.
A mortgagor who deals in good faith with a mortgagee is entitled to assume that one mortgagee can give a valid receipt for the money: PLA s 112-113. If one of two or more mortgagees gets the money of another mortgagee, he or she holds it on trust for the other mortgagee or (after death) their personal representative.
|
---|
In such case equity will presume a TIC despite the position in law (Lake v Craddock). This is because it is unfair to permit the principle of survivorship to operate in an undertaking designed to produce a profit, since the partner who died first would lose all his investment
|
---|
In such case equity will presume a TIC despite the position at law (Malayan Credit).
This will be more clearly the case where the grantees divide up the premises into distinct parts and pay shares of rent and connected costs proportionately (Malayan Credit).
|
---|
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Property B Notes.
These exam notes were used to achieve a High Distinction in Property B at Monash University, and include problem question notes and a separate document including content and suggestions for policy question answers. The notes cover all course content as of the exam year and include clear and easily usable exam problem structures.
The notes are easily navigated as include clear and comprehensive lists of contents and page numbers.
The author of these notes has never scored less than a High Di...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started