n claimants hold legal interest of the land and

n

The
facts given from the problem question illustrates the various concepts of land
law. Concepts

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

include
the rules of trust relationships, ownership rights, distinction between
chattels and

fixtures,
overriding interests, transfer of legal title of land to a buyer (conveyance), the

conflict
between legal interest and equitable interest, registration of land, contracts
and

deeds. These
elements are applied to the issues presented in the problem question. It is
essential

to
state every relevant fact of the case, then analyze the facts to determine the
underlying issues

of the
given question. Moreover, the analysis of the facts is critical for formulating
arguments

and the
conclusion itself, provided that the facts of a case may be convoluted and not

straightforward.
Such situations when the facts of a case go astray, different legal principles,

concepts,
and cases of land law are required to apply to the facts. The relevant cases,
concepts,

legislation,
and the application of the law with a detailed analysis is quintessential to
support the

legal
arguments, in which they conclusively solve the issue of the given question. The
case

involves
two claimants pursuing a claim for a
reasonable cause of legal title of the land and its

materials.
The central aspect of the issues revolves around whether both claimants hold
legal

interest
of the land and the building materials left on the land after a transfer of

ownership
shifts to the claimants.

Issue

Based on the material
facts of the question, there are series of events that culminate and link

together to
structure issues that are intended to be solved. The given problem question
presents

two issues. The
first main issue focuses on whether the legal interest of the land and the
building

materials
transfers in succession to Jordy. Upon the death of Fraser, the testamentary
trust came

into effect as the
result of the death and it appointed Jordy as the executor, who is bound to
perform

the responsibilities
and duties of the will. Additionally, the will sets out the transfer of legal

interest of
Fraser’s land to Jordy. Jordy’s issue becomes complicated when the issue itself

transitions to
Shane. By Maya’s act of selling the land to Dusan, it initiates a complex

issue for both
Jordy and Shane as they both are claiming legal ownership for the land and the

building materials
on the land. Moreover, Maya’s act is in fact creates a conflict of

interest between
the two claimants on the point of Maya had foregone ignored the signed

letter he promised
to Shane. The second issue involves Shane and the signed letter Maya

promised to him.
It is evident that the signed letter presents uncertainty on whether the
agreement

legally
enforceable based on the fact Shane sold his land in preparation to purchase
the land

from the signed
letter. Proprietary estoppel plays a role for this situation as whether the
promise

is sufficient to
convey the land to Shane as he had already relied on the signed letter by

selling his land
and moving to the land. Another underlying issue from the material facts

is the
co-ownership relationship between Fraser and Maya on whether they formed joint

tenancy or tenancy
in common. There are material facts in the case that are will be addressed

in the application
section such as whether Shane occupying the land contributes to any form of

legal standpoint,
overriding interests, and determining whose name is under the registration of the

land. So it can be
seen, both Jordy and Shane are claiming the possession of land and building

materials, however
such issue is challenged by the involvement of Maya.

Rule

Apart from the
legal principles found on each relevant case law, the primary legislation in
land

law hold an
integral role on imposing the rules that governs conveyancing, land
registration,

deeds and
contracts, tenancy relationships, and relationship between a trustee and a
beneficiary.

The objective of
the Law of Property Act 1925 is to manage all forms of conveyancing with ease.

The statute deals
with various elements of land law such as severance of legal title under joint

tenancy cannot be
done and under equity, an equitable interest under joint tenancy can be severed

by
giving a notice in writing to other join tenants.1 Establishing between joint
tenancy and

tenancy
in common, an inference can be made by the fact no express declaration has been
made,

therefore,
the land is under joint tenancy. Circumstances arise when no express
declaration

has
been made, the law generally favours joint tenancy than tenancy in common as
equity

follows
the law. The facts of the problem question did not mention an evidence of
express

declaration
through writing, hence express trust does not exist according to section
53(1)(b) of

the
Law of Property Act 1925.2 As the co-ownership
relationship between Fraser and Maya has

been
established as joint tenancy, the general rule with joint tenancy is that wills
are invalid due

to
the rules of survivorship. The legal interests of Fraser upon his death
transfers to the

remaining
survivor in the joint tenancy, in this case, Maya is given full ownership of
the

land. The
Land Registration Act 2002 fundamentally reshaped the methods of registration

of
ownership titles. The registration of Maya’s name under the land enables him to
freely

transfer
the freehold estate to a buyer.3 This is important to note
because of the distinction

of the
priority interests between section 28 and section 29. Section 28 states that
priority of

registered
land is based on the date of the creation,4 however, section 29
precedes over section

28.
Section 29 is in effect only if the registered disposition is for a valuable
consideration for

priority
to take place.5
Moreover, the Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996

simplified
the rules governing the relationship between trustees and beneficiaries.
Section 12

highlights
the prevents unreasonable occupation for individuals who lack beneficial
interest on

the
land and when land itself is unsuitable for occupation.6 This is the case for Shane
as he

chose
to occupy the land whilst the land is not unsuitable for occupation as no form
of

infrastructure
is in place besides demolished materials and a shed. It can be added that

the
signed letter, detailing the ability of Shane to purchase the land if a certain
circumstance

arise,
that was promised to Shane is valid under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
Proprietary

estoppel
is a remedy that creates a proprietary interest in land if the claimant is
denied of

legal
title of land upon the discretion of current holder of the legal title based on
an adverse

behavior.
In this case, Shane is under a detriment as he sold his land for the benefit
and reliance

on
having the opportunity to purchase land from Maya’s promised signed letter.

1 Law of Property Act
1925, s36(2)

2 Law of Property Act
1925, s53(1)(b)

3 Land Registration Act 2002, s 27(1)

4 Land Registration Act 2002, s 28

5 Land Registration Act 2002, s 29

6 Trusts of Land and
Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, s 12

x

Hi!
I'm Roxanne!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out