Following the death of A, the legal title in the property vests in B alone. B will continue to hold the property on a trust of land, as to a 50% beneficial interest for B and a 50% beneficial interest for the beneficiaries of A's estate. The doctrine of overreaching enables purchasers in good faith for money or moneys worth to rely solely on the legal title. However, to overreach any beneficial interests behind the trust the buyer must pay the purchase money to at least two trustees or a trust corporation. Where the beneficial interests are overreached, the trust attaches to the proceeds of sale. Where only one co-owner of land survives, it is useful to check: • if it is necessary for the surviving

A covenant to erect a fence or a hedge is a positive covenant. It is likely that the transfer will identify the land to benefit from the covenant. The benefit of a positive covenant may benefit successors-in-title by 'running with the land' both in common law and in equity, provided

Property in England and Wales when jointly owned is held as legal joint tenants (being the persons registered as the legal owners of the property, or, where it is unregistered, the legal owners), who hold it on trust for the beneficial owners (usually themselves, but not always). The beneficial ownership can be held as joint tenants or as tenants in common. The former means that the beneficial owners each own the whole of the property (‘per muy et per tout’); the latter means that the parties have defined interests (which, if there is no declaration of trust is rebuttably presumed to be equal

We have assumed that B has no legal ownership of the home or business in question. We can’t provide advice on fact specific scenarios and the remedy available to a claimant in a constructive trust case will depend on the entire course of dealings between the parties. However, we refer you to the following resources, which explain

We refer you to Q&A: Jointly owned property and loss of capacity Q&As, in particular the section headed ‘Cases where the incapacitated trustee has appointed an attorney(s) under an enduring or lasting Powers of Attorney’. As a joint owner of the property,

In this Q&A, A and B, a married couple, have a bank account in joint names. A has now died. Within the seven years prior to A’s death, a gift was made out of the joint account to Y. B has stated that she made the gift. The issue is how are gifts from joint accounts treated for the purposes of the general law and for the purposes of tax law. Joint accounts—general law For the purposes of the general law, if a bank account is held in joint names, the inference is that it is intended that there would be beneficial co-ownership unless there is evidence to the contrary: Re Figgis. The co-owners would

Under section 108 of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) transactions are linked if they form part of a single scheme, arrangement or series of transactions between the same vendor and purchaser, or in either case, persons connected with them (connected for these purposes is as set out in section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (CTA 2010)). A company is connected with another

If a donor makes a settlement and is one of the members of the discretionary class of beneficiaries, this is a gift with reservation (GWR). If property subject to a reservation, (or property representing it which is treated as the property comprised in the gift), remains subject to a reservation until the donor's death, that property is treated by the GWR provisions as property to which the donor was beneficially entitled immediately before his death. The value of that property

Section 5 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 provides for the cesser of right of executor to prove that: ‘Where a person appointed executor by a will— (i) survives the testator but dies without having taken out probate of the will; or (ii) is cited to take out probate of the will and does not appear to the citation; or (iii) renounces probate of the will; his rights in respect of the executorship shall wholly cease, and the representation to the testator and the administration

The issue here is between ‘a claim for personal injuries’, and ‘a claim in negligence or in battery’, which is itself a confusion between a form of damage (and its remedies) on the one hand, and a cause of action on the other. ‘Personal injury’ is not a tort—it is a sort of damage resulting from a tort, which gives rise to a legal right to a remedy. It is to be contrasted with other physical damage—or example, to property, and other forms of tortious interference with a person’s rights (for example, the damage to one’s reputation that results from the tort of defamation). If A attacks B, and B is physically

It would be prudent for the holding company and the subsidiary to enter into some form of short term lease to cover the period before assignment. It may be possible to use a section 43(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) agreement, but the preferable option would be a lease with

In this Q&A, the second statutory demand was served on the debtor after the presentation of the bankruptcy petition. Section 267(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) provides that ‘…a creditor’s petition may be presented to the court in respect of a debt or debts only if, at the time the petition is presented—’. There then follows a list of criteria that must be satisfied, and throughout that list is reference to ‘the debt’. Accordingly, it appears that a petition must be based