Law Sessions With Jennifer Housen’s Podcast

Mastering Co-ownership Exam Questions: A Legal Breakdown

Subscriber Episode • • Jennifer Housen • Season 11 • Episode 4

Share episode

Subscriber-only episode

This session completes our examination preparation series by breaking down how to tackle co-ownership questions, specifically focusing on a severance question from the 2009 University of London LLB examination paper. We provide a step-by-step approach to structuring answers chronologically and maintaining focus on the specific legal issues rather than writing general treatises on severance.

• Always begin with a clear introduction that frames the central conflict 
• Establish the initial co-ownership status of both legal and beneficial estates
• Chart events chronologically to examine potential severance of beneficial joint tenancy
• Avoid assuming parties are beneficial tenants in common from the outset
• After discussing each event, explicitly state the resulting ownership distribution
• Reference relevant sections of TALATA (particularly sections 14 and 15) when discussing co-owner disputes
• Only mention factors that directly apply to the scenario at hand
• Structure answers to show the progression of proprietary interests clearly

Premium service subscribers can contact us to request a copy of the sample answer to this question prepared under time conditions of 35 minutes or less.


💡⚖️ Let’s learn the law together—one session at a time!

Speaker 1:

Welcome back to this final part in this law session dealing with how you approach answering exam questions. You've seen the approach we've taken in respect of an easement question and you've also seen the approach I've taken in respect of a lease question. Now we're going to consider a co-ownership question and, in particular, we will look at question three, which was a severance question posed on the University of London LLB Programme's 2009 examination paper London LLB Programme's 2009 examination paper. Now it is a slightly longish question, but the facts are fairly easy to follow. The question reads like this In 2006, four bankers Andrew, belinda, cindy and Davina purchased Seaview for them to use as a weekend cottage.

Speaker 1:

They made equal contributions to the purchase price and title to Seaview was conveyed to all four of them. In 2007, andrew decided to emigrate to Australia. He therefore sold his interest in Seaview to Edna. Belinda disliked Edna. She therefore wrote to Cindy and Davina to tell them that she was urgently looking for somebody to buy her share. Belinda subsequently changed her mind about selling when she realized she would be able to use Seaview when Edna was not there. In 2008, cindy ran into financial difficulty and offered to sell her interest to Davina. They discussed the possibility over several months, but before they could agree terms, cindy was killed in a boating accident by her will. Cindy left all her property to her brother, frank. Belinda now wants Seaview to be sold, but Davina prefers to retain the cottage.

Speaker 1:

Discuss Again. There are several issues to pick up in there, but it is a straightforward severance question and, frankly, had severance been an area that you had considered preparing in advance of the exam, then certainly none of it should be terribly surprising to you. First, what is it that you are discussing? Because the examiner says discuss. Well, look at the last part of the question. It says Belinda now wants Seaview to be sold, but Davina prefers to retain the cottage. This is the question to discuss. Everything that you will talk about will lead up to that point. You will, of course, use the law relating to co-ownership and severance to answer it, but please do not lose sight of the woods for the trees and turn this into a complete treatise on what is severance. What you would need to do is to structure your answer and respond to this type of question chronologically for it to be clear and effective. So a good introduction again. Remember my jeopardy analogy. I would suggest you could start something like in discussing Belinda's wishes to have Seaview sold as against Davina's preference to retain the cottage.

Speaker 1:

The focus will be on deciding not only Belinda's and Davina's proprietary status but their respective shears of the land, given the various events. That, in a nutshell, allows somebody who is reading my answer to know there is a Belinda, there's a Davina issue. We need to look at the proprietary interest, the status, and they are also aware that certain events have occurred. Now then, as I say straight off, even if somebody did not see the question but saw my answer, they should be able to know what it is I am about to discuss. So you would then go on to establish the co-ownership status of the legal and beneficial estate when C-view was first conveyed to the four of them, and the advice should then chart the various events that have occurred and look at the subsequent events to examine the possible ways in which there may or may not have been severance of the beneficial joint tenancy. Now the examiner does tell you that it was conveyed, what the examiner and certainly, as I say that would suggest a deed, but the examiner certainly has not said to you about the beneficial interest. You would need to flag up that.

Speaker 1:

What we are looking at in equity. Possibly is equity following the or may not have been severance of the beneficial joint tenancy, either by virtue of, say, statutory notice under Section 36 or by one of the other methods outlined in the case of Williams and Hensman. Now, this will help you to identify which of the original equitable co-owners may claim a share of the proceeds if there is a sale of Seaview in 2009. What you should not do, of course, is assume that the parties already had an undivided share at the start, because there's nothing on the question which tells you that they are tenants in common. So the starting point would be that, if it was conveyed to them at law in all four names, this is the type of question, as I say, that an examiner will suggest, or an examiner will state. In it there is a declaration, or it is a kind where nothing is said.

Speaker 1:

At that point, before the examiner starts telling you who has dealt with what part of which year, you either refer to the declaration to say that we're looking at joint beneficial interests or, in the absence of that, you say to the examiner that equity would fall the law and, given that they are joint legal owners, then they are joint beneficial owners and so anything being severed subsequently would then follow that format. Do not assume at the outset that the parties are beneficial tenants in common. There's nothing on the facts which suggests that. Remember that equity only assumes that kind of beneficial tenants in common where there is a partnership or where there's an individual business purpose. Now it tells us that this is some kind of holiday home or something and in that regard what you need to consider is, yes, if you're going to make the point that, to show how very clever you are and how very well you know the area, if you're going to say to the examiner we are not told if this was purchased as a partnership in order to be used, or then you would suggest that if it did, then of course automatically it's assumed. But in the absence of that, you revert to the position of it being a partnership beneficial joint tenancy in equity. In fact, precisely because you are discussing severance, you need the parties to be beneficial joint tenants to then logically discuss severance. Also, any severance question will need you to discuss the Trust of Land and Appointment of land and appointment of trustees at TALATA, and in particular sections 14 and 15 will always be relevant in a discussion. It is practically a requirement in a severance discussion, because it deals with any situation where you're looking at a trust or a situation where you have a trust with trustees and, frankly, as I say, it is almost a requirement.

Speaker 1:

Now, one of the things I urge you to practice is, after you have discussed the parties in turn, meaning after each event, say at that point in your discussion what the shares are, before you move to the next, this person or the next event. So, for example, the first thing we are told is that in 2007, andrew decided to emigrate to Australia. He therefore sold his interest in Seaview to Edna. Well, after the introduction, I would suggest you subhead and deal with Andrew first. Now, let's assume you discuss that he has alienated his shear and that Edna is now a tenant in common. At the end of the discussion, under Andrew, I would suggest you say something like at this point therefore, andrew, belinda, cindy and Davina are holding the legal title on trust, for Edna as a tenant in common 25% and for Belinda, cindy and Davina, 75% joint tenants. Remember that Andrew is still a joint tenant at law.

Speaker 1:

Now it gives clarity and it does allow you to have an answer which flows beautifully.

Speaker 1:

At the end, you then address the question. We see that Belinda and Davina are having issues. You then have to use Talata to say what the outcome is likely to be and the answer, of course, is that the most obvious thing is a section 14 application where the section 15 factors are considered by the court and you see which relevant section 15 factors you would raise. You do not raise all of them. So there's a section 15 factor which says you know any minor which occupy or might reasonably occupy the property. We don't see any children in this, so we don't need to raise that. The whole idea about legal writing is relevant. So that is how I would approach it. Now, I hope that what I've just gone through was helpful and, again, if you follow the format, you are likely to do very well indeed. Again, as a final point, if you are signed up to our premium service, then you can contact us to request a copy of the sample answer to this question which I've personally prepared under time conditions of 35 minutes or less.