Should Carol Have Any Interests In Relation To Green Acres?
In this essay, issues on equitable interests, fixtures and chattels and finder’s rights will be analysed. Carol will be advised accordingly.
Primarily, we need to establish whether Carol has any interests as per s1(2) LPA 1925. Carol contributed to the purchase, she has an equitable interest in the property as per s1(3) LPA 1925. She also has an interest under a constructive trust or resulting trust as in Gissing v Gissing.
Secondly, we need to discuss whether Carol will have priority over the mortgages in relation to Green Acres (GA). GA is a registered freehold property with two types of mortgages on it; acquisition and non-acquisition mortgages. They are to be dealt with separately.
The next issue is whether Carol will have priority …show more content…
Again there is no overreaching, so she can possibly assert her interest against LBS. However, because she was not present at GA, the issue of actual occupation arises. In Chhokar [1983] and Bustard [2010], actual occupation would suffice even where there is “evidence of a sufficient degree of continuity and permanence of occupation, of involuntary residence elsewhere, which was satisfactorily explained by objective reasons, … property”. Accordingly, it is probable that Carol would satisfy the criteria for actual occupation as her belongings were …show more content…
However, for a light fitting to be fixture, evidence of annexation would be required. Moreover, in Hamp v Bygrave, light fittings attached to a front wall was deemed to be fixtures. In the scenario, the removal of the lanterns to a certain extent, damaged property as electrical wires were exposed. The wires could also be evidence that the lanterns were firmly attached. Thus, it is probable that the lanterns are fixtures.
As for the purpose of annexation, although the lanterns are used for the purpose of ornament, they are also used to presumably light up the front wall of the house. Hence this can be distinguished from Leigh v Taylor, where if the purpose of annexation was to enable the chattel to be enjoyed as a chattel, then the object would remain a chattel. The lanterns had a greater purpose other than only being enjoyed. Besides, they improved the property by being part of architectural design, implying that they could be fixtures.
Ultimately, it will be for the court to decide whether the items are chattels or
Primarily, we need to establish whether Carol has any interests as per s1(2) LPA 1925. Carol contributed to the purchase, she has an equitable interest in the property as per s1(3) LPA 1925. She also has an interest under a constructive trust or resulting trust as in Gissing v Gissing.
Secondly, we need to discuss whether Carol will have priority over the mortgages in relation to Green Acres (GA). GA is a registered freehold property with two types of mortgages on it; acquisition and non-acquisition mortgages. They are to be dealt with separately.
The next issue is whether Carol will have priority …show more content…
Again there is no overreaching, so she can possibly assert her interest against LBS. However, because she was not present at GA, the issue of actual occupation arises. In Chhokar [1983] and Bustard [2010], actual occupation would suffice even where there is “evidence of a sufficient degree of continuity and permanence of occupation, of involuntary residence elsewhere, which was satisfactorily explained by objective reasons, … property”. Accordingly, it is probable that Carol would satisfy the criteria for actual occupation as her belongings were …show more content…
However, for a light fitting to be fixture, evidence of annexation would be required. Moreover, in Hamp v Bygrave, light fittings attached to a front wall was deemed to be fixtures. In the scenario, the removal of the lanterns to a certain extent, damaged property as electrical wires were exposed. The wires could also be evidence that the lanterns were firmly attached. Thus, it is probable that the lanterns are fixtures.
As for the purpose of annexation, although the lanterns are used for the purpose of ornament, they are also used to presumably light up the front wall of the house. Hence this can be distinguished from Leigh v Taylor, where if the purpose of annexation was to enable the chattel to be enjoyed as a chattel, then the object would remain a chattel. The lanterns had a greater purpose other than only being enjoyed. Besides, they improved the property by being part of architectural design, implying that they could be fixtures.
Ultimately, it will be for the court to decide whether the items are chattels or